File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
the usual, c&c and tips on using color tone temperature--i use lightroom by the way.
thanks mates!
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:05:20 20:48:57Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width479Image Height719
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>186431
Oh fucking get off it already
>> Anonymous
>>186438
/p is like the world of Harrison Bergeron - cripple everyone so that nothing stands out.
>> www.TIMELOOPTHEORY.com
BLURRY SHIT
UNNATURAL YELLOW TONE
OBVIOUSLY FAKE VIGNETTING
>> Anonymous
>>186431
op here,
that's a start i suppose, but i think i'll stick with what i've got there as far as vignetting is concerned. imo it helps give depth to the image.

anything else?--since i was mostly shooting for criticism/tips on use of color.
>> Anonymous
>>186444
FWIW I think it's pretty good as it is.
>> Anonymous
>>186444
I like it. Antivignetting fags are too fucking stupid to only look at the rim of the picture.
>> Anonymous
>>186444

CC:
- Vignetting does not automatically add depth.. EVERYONE on flickr does it.. does that make every photo on flickr deep?

- Point of interest is centered.. doesnt make it horrible, but makes it a little boring

- Horizon is pretty centered which adds more boring.. show us more of either the ground or the sky.

- Sky is nice, but vignetting makes it look weird in the corners.

- Contrast seems a little high

Could you post it w/ less contrast and no vignetting for comparison? Also, what focal length is it?
>> Anonymous
The vignetting is stupid. This is ruined by bad PP by someone who has no willpower to resist the toys at their fingertips. Use film developing for a while (NO DIGITAL EDITING AFTER) and learn how to work with a more limited tool set. Spend more time making a good picture to start with rather than adding yet more idiotic vignetting and shitty yellow tones to mediocre images.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Fixed some of the color/exposure problems.
Didn't want to bother taking it into Photoshop to remove the vignetting.

TUrns out it's a shitty photo underneath the yellow tone and bad PP.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:05:20 20:48:57Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width479Image Height719
>> Anonymous
Using Photoshop as a crutch to bad photography.

Always WINNER.
>> Anonymous
>>186423

Clouds aren't generally piss-yellow in colour.
You might want to fix that before posting again, chap!
>> Anonymous
>>186463

This is better
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>186463
Seems clear the vignetting isn't that bad, it was just accentuated by the high contrast.
>>186423
If you still want to go that high contrast, tone down the yellow and the vignetting a little, as together it's all a little too much.
>> Anonymous
>>186496
>Seems clear the vignetting isn't that bad

No, the vignetting IS that bad.
It just isn't centered, which makes it even more obvious that it's fake.

Vignetting along bottom & upper left is WAY too strong.
>> Anonymous
op here,

>>186496
thanks a lot, i'll definitely work on that in the future.

yes, i have recently acquired lightroom, so i've been going a little bat shit with all the tools in one place. this is of course a fault of my own, and in due time the novelty will wear off.

thanks to everyone who have left comments so far, i'll continue to fine-tune it. in terms of "shittyness," however, i don't understand where such a statement is validated, though i realize everything here is subject to any opinion, and i don't intend to fight it or complain. i'm happy with it, the person i've done the shot for is happy with it, and i realize it can be better, so i'm getting on it.

thanks again guys, y'all are great. :D
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>186499
Mostly looks like the shadow in the grass. I think part of what looks like lopsided vignetting is just where the sky goes from washed out, next to the sun which is just off frame, to actually having some color. I really don't see much of a vignette, but maybe I'm just too used to looking at polarized skies.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
op here,
i'll most likely get raped for going directly against most of the cautionary comments placed on the first image. but in all honestly i like this version a lot better. i think i still have a ways to go but i believe i'm getting somewhere. instead of blue-ing out the entire sky as anon did in the edit that was posted, i upped the saturation to more of a sunset look, with the blue still visible as the clouds are more visible, less light exposed onto them. contrast went down about 25%, as did vignetting. it will still appear uneven, but yes, this is in fact because of the shadows already present in the pictures.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:05:21 18:16:34Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width479Image Height719
>> Anonymous
the picture isn't that good to begin with
>> Anonymous
>>186533

piss yellow fail
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>186423
hay OP
i actually quite like your photo.. it's not as bad as people say it is. the vignetting is a little heavy, but your main problem PP wise is that the contrast is a little too stark
also, decrease the color tone slightly. this isn't a photo that requires heavy PP
photo wise i wish you angled your camera upwards a little more, less grass and more sky would've been good
>> Anonymous
>>186543
Agreed 100%. I would've written the same thing but just saw the thread bumped with quoted post.

Decent photo, poor editing, but good overall.
>> Anonymous
dude, op, whoever you are. Just give up already. Your "photograph" looks like shit. And it's not a photograph cause you raped it in photoshop, it's now "digital art"
So you're posting this crap in the wrong forum.
And it was a total shit image to begin with.
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>186547
get the fuck out
>> Anonymous
>>186547
what the fuck is wrong with everyone? if you don't like the style, deal with it. it's not a bad shot. sometimes /p/ is as bad as /g/
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
>>186543
seconded

also if you can find any tone in the bright spot in the upper right of the image bring it out. right now is a little distracting as a white blob amongst the cloud detail
>> Anonymous
op here,
>>186543
thanks a lot, yeah i'm still working on it. :P

>>186547
i think i'm better off learning from my mistakes rather than running away from them, yeah? everyone starts somewhere and must always work towards something, i suppose you're just used to giving up when things get tough or when people get you down.

i see this photograph as a total love/hate situation, comparable to the film '300'. some love the post production work and the colors and filters used on what little actual filmed landscapes there were, others outright despise it. it's just a matter of what appeals to you personally. i'm very much influenced by the techniques made to craft how that film (and many others like it) is made to look. when i saw that shot, at that moment when i took it, my imagination took off, and i saw many ideas for color usage that simply weren't there for my eyes to see literally. i don't see the assistance of computer technology in pictures such as these as a burden or a curse. when used incorrectly (which i realize i have done to an extent, but again, i'm working on this) they can cause disaster for the intended final product, but they also have a huge positive.

i'm not trying to change anyone's mind about this, i'm just trying to get my head around this technology.

thanks again everyone. :)
>> Anonymous
>>186561

Did you just compare your bad snapshot to the masterpiece that is 300, you unworthy little fleck of dandruff on the head of a leprous rat?

THIS IS MADNESS!
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>186561
same here OP
and remember, the only way to get better at PP is to keep doing it
along the way you may get some shitty results here and there but at least you'll learn from those mistakes
i personally can't see myself doing photography with the absence of PP, half the fun is when i get home and get creative
the whole subject and opinion on PP is really really subjective, which means there's no real point arguing against someone who disagrees with PP entirely
if they bring up valid points, then it's worth listening
>> Anonymous
op yet again.
>>186570
hahah, i said the situation was comparable to 300, not the photograph. i attempt to emulate the style of it and various other films (remember, 300 is by far not the first to achieve this effect) and photography. i've lurked /p/ for a little while and even here there are very cartoon-like or comic photos that pass through, with many positive and negative responses. it's just par for the course.

>>186573
thanks dude, i appreciate your comment, and i fully intend to keep going. :)