File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
submitted a photo a few days ago with much PP usage, so I'm putting up a different shot of the same area as the previous photo, but much less PP, just a color tone change.

so the usual, c&c please and thank you.
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 21:00:32Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width479Image Height719
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
Much better composition.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>187874
Looks like the exact same amount of photoshop.
Although I actually like the high-contrast Tone Split effect.
Composition isn't to shabby either.
>> op here
>>187884
believe me, it's not--and it's probably better this way. the lighting and colors in the submitted photo are exactly as shot, just a bit warmer. that and my usual vignetting faggotry are the only changes to the photo, so i'm quite happy with that in comparison to the first shot.
>> Anonymous
>>187887

>the lighting and colors in the submitted photo are exactly as shot

what country do you live in where the sky is piss-yellow all the time?
>> Anonymous
What's up with the uneven vignetting? I don't like it. I don't like the yellow cast you've given it either.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Oh hi.. i fix'd your pic

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:05:23 15:59:36Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width479Image Height719
>> Anonymous
>>188049

Better, but the foreground is still too dark (as it was in the OP's image).
>> Anonymous
>>188051

I didnt feel like taking the time to select the whole foreground and bring everything up when the base photograph has already been fucked up by OP
>> op here
>>188052
what exactly have i done wrong from the beginning? suggestions would be much appreciated, rather than "the picture is fucked up".

thanks for the by the way comments guys. :D
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>188056
This is /p, and you've used a lot of postprocessing. Or at least it looks like you have. That's all the reason /p needs.
If you really haven't changed much, please show the original before pp.
>> Anonymous
>>188056

turning it yellow.
>> Greg
Personally, I like it.

>>188049
I do prefer these colors a little bit though.
>> Anonymous
The yellow cast looks like shit.

Why do you keep doing it?
Is it supposed to look like a sunset? Or supposed to look like an old photograph?

It doesn't.
It looks like you took a photo and put a pan on top of it and then ate a bunch of vitamins and then pissed in the pan.
>> Probably should have desaturated it but don't want to spend the time. Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
30 seconds in Aperture, making only overall changes and no selective editing.

1) Fixd the awful yellow tint.
2) Fixd the horrible underexposure.
3) Improved saturation and sharpness.

It's still fucked up, but now it looks like an actual photograph instead of some fag trying to shoot midday-for-sunset and doing a really bad job of it.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:05:20 21:00:32Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width479Image Height719
>> Anonymous
>>188075

0/10

you really need to try harder if your going to troll.
>> iProd !8x7lXo9zIQ
     File :-(, x)
CONTRAST WARMTH DESATURATION

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 5DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/4.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:05:22 21:08:27Exposure Time1/400 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating50Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length24.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1000Image Height1500RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>188075

A million times better.
>> Anonymous
>>188079
>I am the OP and I am wicked butthurt.

What I do not understand is why you persist in putting a yellow tint OP. Everyone said it looked bad when you did it last time so why did you do it again?
>> Anonymous
>>188090

what Anon said + why lie about it?
>> Anonymous
>>188075
>2) Fixd the horrible underexposure.

op image was overexposed.
lrn2camera.
>> Anonymous
>>188075
awfull saturation man
>> Anonymous
>>188082
>>188090
>>188094
>>188093
>>188096

wow one fag has far to much time on their hands
>> Anonymous
>>188105

You wish, OP. That is at least more than one as I only made one of those comments. Suck it down, bitch!
>> Anonymous
>>188094

underexposed? according to who? by which all encompassing law makes one photo underexposed and the other not?

your taste/ opinion isn't a rule.
>> Anonymous
>>188107

HAHA, OH WOW
>> Anonymous
>>188106

no not the op. i dont like these picture but dont delude yourself into thinking you can do better.

your improved>>188075version is just as shit as the ops as it does nothing better than force you shitty artistic choice on someone else's photo.
>> Anonymous
>>188110

oh right lurk moar ..etc.

instead of spewing shitty memes why don't you construct a argument.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>188110
Haven't followed the thread so I can't comment specifically, but in a noncontextual sense he's right. There is no "correct" exposure.

Pic related, from David Alan "spotmeter the highlights" Harvey.
>> Anonymous
>>188111

That wasn't me, moron.

PROTIP: There is more than one other person on the internet.

You sound like another undercover crybaby OP who's defending their photo with BULLSHIT and BAWWWW.
>> Anonymous
>>188114

lol! comparing david allen harvey's work with op's shitty photo. get over yourself.
>> Anonymous
>>188119
>Haven't followed the thread so I can't comment specifically

>in a noncontextual sense

Learn to read.
>> Anonymous
>>188112

I will when you will. Lollerskates.
>> Anonymous
>>188121

i did read it and you are still an idiot. learn to actually read the thread that you vomit your stupidity into. learn to read yourself. oh snap!
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>188081
Warm, like the warm spot in a pool.
>> Anonymous
>>188124
The OP picture isn't good, but I haven't followed the discussion and don't care about it. It would do enormous good for photography, though, if people would get into their heads that their meter is a fucking tool and not an overseer. So I took the opportunity to make that point.
>> Anonymous
>>188118

oh god did someone make you cry.

>>188114

yup exposing correctly is a "false" construct.
>> Anonymous
>>188127

sorry, so what exactly is your point?
>> Anonymous
>>188129

That you are stupid.
>> Anonymous
>>188128

Your idiocy makes me cry for the dismal future of the human race if you and your kind are allowed to breed.
>> Anonymous
>>188129
Just that: the right exposure is a subjective artistic decision. A picture can be 90% 0 or 90% 255 if that's what works.
>> Anonymous
>>188133

yeah i dont think /p/ understands that.
>> Anonymous
>>188133

The point is that it doesn't work here and the image is plain bad. Everything else is irrelevant to this thread or more of the trolling.

The image is bad. That is my opinion. If you or anyone else don't want opinions on their photos or just come out with the "everything subjective" claim, as if that somehow makes those opinions you don't like go away, then don't ever post them or show them to anyone ever and live in your own happy world. No one will demand otherwise of you.
>> Anonymous
>>188146
Yes, it's irrelevent to the thread because the OP image doesn't work. I was making a side point and noted that.
>> Anonymous
>>188146

you do realize that your contradicting yourself? your being completely subjective.
>> Anonymous
>>188151

Learn to read. That was my point. You don't come to this place and ask for opinions if you think something that is subjective is no good.
>> Anonymous
>>188154

no one should come to /p/ asking for c&c full stop. It turns into threads like this.

I DONT LIKE IT BAAAWWWW BBBAAAWWWW FUCKING BAAAAAWWWWWWWW.
>> Anonymous
>>188156
pretty much what /p/ is

faggots can't critique worth a shit because LOL they suck at photography and have no idea what they're talking about
at the same time these SAME shitty photographers suck at listening to good criticism because they think they're AWSM!!!!!!!!
there are only a handful of good people/photographers in /p/
>> Anonymous
>>188183I am butthurt

I fixed your post for you. R00fles!