Alright /p/ I haven't been here in a while.
I use a shitty Rebel T4i, I don't get out to shoot much maybe 10 days out of the year, but when I do I try to take it seriously. This year I started using Luminosity masks in photoshop instead of using Camera Raw and LR.
All My Photos this year were taken at Acadia National Park, Tear Me Apart
1/8
2/8
I was shocked by how much more detail I could pull out out of a single image using Lum masks considering the shitty T4i
3/8
This is the only HDR (4 pics) out of these
4/8
>Get here an hour before sunset
>Wait for amazing colors
>Shitty grey clouds
5/8
6/8
7/8
8/8
BONUS: This one is the most recent taken near Baltimore, MD.
Also, I always try to make my edits as realistic as possible, I don't like to overly-saturate and change hue's to make things more dramatic, Its mostly pull highlights/shadows where I want them, and adding a tiny bit of saturation cause RAWs do look a little flat.
why no exifs
>>2723340
Cause they're edited in Photoshop using Adjustment layers and then Flattened and "Save For Web" I didn't notice it until I put it on my Flickr, I'm not sure how I can preserve it tho. Regardless it shouldn't matter most of exposures were under 1/60th and the lenses I use are 40mm Pancake, 70-200 F4L IS, and Rokinon 16mm F2
>>2723313
>>2723325
I like these.
the other ones don't get me:
typical landscape stuff.. thing in foreground landscape in background with basic composition (or cropped to match some compositional rules). Note that this is nothing bad, but it's been done so often it gets boring to look at for me.
>>2723340
do those really matter here? exposure seems pretty much ok to me.
>>2723351
OP here
>typical landscape stuff.. thing in foreground landscape in background with basic composition
Thanks, I agree, Although with landscapes there isn't much you can do unless you can terraform the land itself. for certain Iconic shots like the one with Bubbles >>2723318 I went on google and Flickr to see all the cliche shots of it so I can avoid it. Everyone Just goes for the Reflection shot of it and unless you take the trail that loops around the lake there is no possible way to get anything in the foreground, and most people don't do because there's literally a parking lot and restaurant right next to the lake and there was a couple photogs standing in that same place taking the same shot.
>>2723312
>mfw processes their canon raws to look like Sone jpags
niqqa, you gotta stop
>>2723412
>>2723675
To Clairify, Camera Raw the photoshop plugin
>>2723311
Damn dude. What is your lifestyle like that you can only get out and shoot ten days of the year?
>>2723701
>>2723701
It's not hard or anything its just that I like landscapes, but I live near DC and there's not too many landscapes around here to shoot closest parks that actaully have anything interesting that I already didn't shoot are 2+ hours away. I Also didn't have car up until a few months ago, and I'm currently in college, so not much time to go anywhere. Next summer I'll probobly have more time.
>>2723351
>does this really matter here?
People might want the exif so they can imitate rather than criticise.
>>2723311
>>2723312
>>2723313
>>2723318
>>2723320
>>2723325
>>2723326
>>2723328
>>2723334
Firstly what I can see from your photos and assuming your environment, I don't you should blame the camera. Your image quality is great.
However for all your photos, I feel that you fucked up your framing and processing. It's okay though, just practice more I guess, try new shit, don't be afraid to crop things in process, it may help try different framing methods and how to focus on subject and it's aesthetics. Good job either way, if you have more photos, post.
>>2723675
>>2723412
I was mainly talking about the colours, but your fake HDR is pretty bad too.
This is how I processed a similar shot.
I didn't, however, underexpose my subject to preserve-but-mostly-blow-out detail in a huge patch of sky I left in the corner of the frame for no good reason.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 550D Camera Software GIMP 2.8.14 Firmware Version Firmware Version 1.0.8 Serial Number 1132529712 Lens Name 30mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Image Created 2015:11:02 14:49:45 Exposure Time 1/500 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Exposure Bias 0 EV Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 30.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 559 Image Height 800 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Exposure Mode Av-Priority Focus Type Auto Metering Mode Partial Sharpness Unknown Saturation Normal Contrast Normal Shooting Mode Manual Image Size Unknown Focus Mode One-Shot Drive Mode Single Flash Mode Off Compression Setting Fine Macro Mode Normal White Balance Flash Exposure Compensation 3 Sensor ISO Speed 160 Color Matrix 129
>>2723789
>Your image quality is great.
What the fuck, omi? I mean seriously. What the fuck?
This isn't "great" image quality. This is shitty to average image quality. The is the type of image quality you get from some kid who just got his first DSLR with a shit lens and doesn't know what the hell he's doing. This is bored soccer-mom level image quality.
>>2723789
> I don't you should blame the camera. Your image quality is great.
IMO, you can pretty much see that the camera is entry-level shit (could also "higher-end" MFT, if I didn't know what it was exactly).
Either way, it's pretty bad. That said, the post work and general aesthetic of most of these shots is okay with me.
Well, >>2723328 is a bit poor. Can't really see what the appeal of that one might be.
Actually, I also like his picture better than >>2723849 with the pretty ugly grass. Camera didn't have enough DR to do this... or you exposed badly. Either way, it doesn't really work for me.
>>2723849
I bracketed this shot, and I was going to HDR it however the clouds moved quickly and caused some strange artifacting when I tried stacking it. This is one of the exposures that was exposed for the foreground, It's unedited but the sky is completely unrecoverable, but you see the actual colors aren't that different from final shot that I ended up using. Also there aren't any halos in the final image. I assume the strange highlights in the tree leafs make you think it looks like HDR but as you can see here the light was actually like that.
>>2723907
>IMO, you can pretty much see that the camera is entry-level shit
This statement means absolutely nothing. What about the images gives you that impression?
>>2723780
Thanks, I chose to cut the bottoms for various reasons .>>2723320 This one was actually cropped quite a bit because my lens wasn't long enough (200mm). With this one >>2723325, I just tried something new and liked it. >>2723326 This one was shot at low tide and at the bottom there are some distracting rocks protruding from the water and there's so many of them that it wasn't an option to clone stamp it out.
>>2723789
I feel that you fucked up your framing and processing
Could you be more specific with this, you just kinda repeated the same thing in the following sentence
>>2723863
>Other people are wrong, but I won't say why or back myself up in any way. Anyone smart knows I'm right without even me having to say anything.
The photos are sharp, detailed, well exposed, and well polished. They could use quite a bit of processing to look finished, in my opinion, but that's unrelated to image quality. Actually say something, and maybe someone will respond and educate you.
>>2723917
Thanks, what could I do to make the processing look finished in your opinion.
>>2723909
It's easy to see.
Flat colors despite adequate daylight.
Low resolution and poor detail sharpness. (Okay, this is also about the camera including lens, not just the body).
High-end cameras make shots like that look *a lot* better.
>>2723935
>Flat colors despite adequate daylight.
Processing
>Low resolution and poor detail sharpness.
I don't see that in most, but as you said, that's the lens, not the body.
>High-end cameras make shots like that look *a lot* better.
No, they don't.
>>2723935
>>2723945
>Talking about sharpness and detail of images
>Using down-scaled 0.66 megapickle image to prove their point
Here's a 100% Crop, This is the Rokinon 16mm f2 shot at like f/8-11 (Idk it's Manuel). Keep in mind the whole image is 18mp APS-C try and find a better wide angle
>>2723935
>>2723945
>>2723967
Same Lens and sensor but this is the sweet spot f/4-5.6
>>2723967
>Keep in mind the whole image is 18mp APS-C try and find a better wide angle
But that is just what I was saying? Something in the camera + lens combo apparently wasn't good at all for the image's sharpness. It doesn't look to me like this was a mistake by the photographer when shooting or in post.
That shot in your post just now absolutely included - it got maybe 1/8 the sensor resolution down okay, if I'm generous.
And apart from the massive lack of sharpness, the colors are very much off, too.
>>2723972
It appears a little sharper, if it is cropped the same way. Still not great though. And the colors are still quite poor.
My point still is that I absolutely blame the camera (+ maybe the lens). Your post work seems decent, and I don't have any particular reason to suspect particularly poor shooting technique either.
>>2724120
>Something in the camera + lens combo apparently wasn't good at all for the image's sharpness
Where are you not seeing sharp images (at 1000 pixels noless) Save it, open it in paint, and circle an area that's in focus, and yet soft to your eyes. Then re-post.
>>2724121
Certainly can't do the same shot with the same image, but I have a cat that is sharp at ~1000 pixels 1:1 and that shows far more color details in its fur.
And that's still with entry-level to maybe low midrange APS-C gear. You can get slightly better sharpness (also by not shaking your camera at 1/200) and certainly still better colors with a better camera. Never mind more light and resolution.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 500 dpi Vertical Resolution 500 dpi
>>2724120
>Keep in mind the whole image is 18mp APS-C try and find a better wide angle
>But that is just what I was saying? Something in the camera + lens combo apparently wasn't good at all for the image's sharpness. It doesn't look to me like this was a mistake by the photographer when shooting or in post.
It's Literally the sharpest lens for APS-C that's under 24mm, please have you're eyes checked
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Photographer Djole Image-Specific Properties:
>>2724147
> Sharpness 13
> Maximum on DxO under 24mm is fucking 28 - over twice as much
> Sauce: http://www.dxomark.com/lenses/focal-from-1-to-24/lens_use_case-lens_superwide#hideAdvancedOptions=false&viewMode=list&yDataType=rankDxo
It's still something in the camera + lens combination. I guess it's the camera then.
Also, the Samyang isn't up there in the complete listing. Never mind the other 16mm Samyang is worse, IDK if he has the better variant.
>>2724146
>Certainly can't do the same shot with the same image
No, I'm telling you, go to one of his images that you are saying is soft due to poor equpment. Save it. Open it up, and draw a circle over a spot that has bad image quality, save it, and re-post it. Say something concrete so a discussion can be had, rather than just saying "I don't know, it just looks bad. I don't know" over and over again. The photos look great, image quality wise, and you're the only one saying otherwise. You seem pretty sure, so I'm trying to give you the opportunity to back up your bullshit that you can't seem to express with words.
>>2724151
>It's Literally the sharpest lens for APS-C that's under 24mm
>Sharpness 28
>D800e
Is a D800e APS-C? Can you have a sharpness of 28 on 550D an 18mp Sensor.
Please kill yourself
>>2724153
This was already posted >>2723967. Do I need to fill it with red circles? It's all unsharp, and the colors are washed out and poor.
> The photos look great, image quality wise
No. Just no.
> and you're the only one saying otherwise
And you might be the only debating it. Never mind it's irrelevant. The majority isn't simply right, and most on /p/ only have one cheap camera to judge "good" by anyways.
> You seem pretty sure, so I'm trying to give you the opportunity to back up your bullshit that you can't seem to express with words.
It is very easy to see, with how poor >>2723967
and >>2723972 look?
I even showed you how something reasonable sharp with okay (but not great) DR looks at 1:1.
You can find far more on flickr for a wider lens DxO rated better: https://www.flickr.com/groups/14/pool/
Of course not every last one of these will look great magnified to 1:1, but that there are many that do look a lot better in terms of sharpness shows that I'm simply right.
If you want to bring scientific measurements, do it. I don't have the tools at my disposal. But I did link you the correct DxO linkage.
>>2724161
>This was already posted >>2723967. Do I need to fill it with red circles? It's all unsharp, and the colors are washed out and poor.
Apparently you do, because for 100% crops, those look great, in the in-focus areas. If you're saying that's not sharp enough, then you've got issues. Also, any softness at that level (I can't see it at 100%) is certainly not showing up in a resized photo. You're grasping at nothing, pretending you see the light, and it's hilarious.
>>2724157
> Is a D800e APS-C? Can you have a sharpness of 28 on 550D an 18mp Sensor.
I never said you have to use 18MP + APS-C. Stop insisting on it? I said something between the lens AND camera is unsharp, without determining which it is.
AND additionally I said that the colors are fucked. I blamed the camera for that one specifically, and I think this is accurate.
Also, I actually never said your images have to be shot at 24mm or under, either. I only indulged you for a second there. But I'd actually prefer if you stopped bringing arbitrary conditions to my statements.
>>2724165
They look shit, even on the in-focus areas. But if you can't see the difference on sharpness and colors on either the flickr or the picture posted in >>2724146, I simply can't help you.
You just want to see what you want to see. Or you think 18MP + APS-C + under 24mm (basically exactly your camera + lens) are conditions and excuses for a statement that said the camera and lens combination are quite bad.
>>2724166
We know that you think it's accurate. It's not. The photos are sharp, the colors look the way they do because of processing. Entry level cameras are capable of enormous dynamic range, and great colors. Just stop.
I'd post great samples from APS-C sensors, but apparently you have no problem pointing to great photos and saying "No that's bad" without being specific, and think that posting a 946 pixel photo of a cat is evidence of something... So I'd be wasting my time.
>>2723311
OP, I'm going to minimize your thread, sorry about that. Your gear is just fine, and you're doing pretty well. If anything, I'd say do a bit of learning about processing by watching some youtube relevant youtube videos, and work to add some midtone contrast to your shots. Look for better light, as it's worth it to take the extra effort to give the magic that comes with the right tones. Keep practicing.
>>2724170
Thank you for being the only one to give me a some-what real critique and tell me how to improve
>>2724170
> The photos are sharp, the colors look the way they do because of processing.
No. And the colors aren't fucked because of processing either.
> Entry level cameras are capable of enormous dynamic range, and great colors.
Sure, some are pretty good (D3300 + A6000 comes to mind?). And you can count a lot to entry-level, the definition is arguably vague.
*OP's camera* is not. He'd have had to fuck up the exposure or processing badly to arrive where he did.
> and think that posting a 946 pixel photo of a cat is evidence of something
It is a 1:1 crop of about the same resolution that is *way* sharper and a lot better with colors.
Evident to anyone with eyes, but you very "cleverly" avoid this admission, or that many images on the linked flickr are way sharper, and very often also better in terms of colors (probably the latter not much with OP's camera model, though, unless they're exposure stacked or something).
>>2723789
>>2723907
>>2723914
holy shit ignore my retarded grammar kek
but yea
>>2723863
its not bad. on a scale of 10 I'd rate it 6.5 ish. It's a very usable image quality, man.
>>2723907
well I do agree it looks entry-level tier but that doesn't mean it doesnt have good potential. I mean with that image quality he could've got a lot better photos. as mentioned above, it's very usable.
>>2723914
yea okay so for example yeah;
>>2723328
this could be edited a lot better, colours a tad more saturated. If possible, go more towards the bird eye view position.
>>2723334
this is just shite. I don't see the point of the giant log in the frame, it just seems intrusive when the main subject seems to be the waterfall.
>>2723312
maybe take this one front on instead of sideways.
>>2723318
no need for the front most body of water to be in the frame, you could've moved a tad front up.
These are only suggestions. I'm saying you should try more angles then pick the best. All of these just look like snapshits.
