architecture
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
saw no architecture thread so i thought i might start one. i am sub-amature so please tell me how shit my pickies are.
pick related 1/7 copenhagen/stockholm/gothenburg
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON Camera Model COOLPIX P5000 Camera Software COOLPIX P5000V1.0 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.7 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 36 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 0000:00:00 00:00:00 Exposure Time 5/418 sec F-Number f/3.0 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 64 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Auto Focal Length 7.50 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3648 Image Height 2736 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown Color Mode COLOR Image Quality NORMAL White Balance AUTO Image Sharpening AUTO Focus Mode AF-S Flash Setting NORMAL ISO Selection AUTO Image Adjustment AUTO Tone Compensation AUTO Lens Adapter OFF Auto Focus Center Saturation Normal Noise Reduction OFF Image Optimization NORMAL Saturation 2 NORMAL
2/7
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON Camera Model COOLPIX P5000 Camera Software Paint.NET v3.5.10 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.7 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 36 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 0000:00:00 00:00:00 Exposure Time 10/813 sec F-Number f/3.0 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 64 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Auto Focal Length 7.50 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3648 Image Height 2736 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown Color Mode COLOR Image Quality NORMAL White Balance AUTO Image Sharpening AUTO Focus Mode AF-S Flash Setting NORMAL ISO Selection AUTO Image Adjustment AUTO Tone Compensation AUTO Lens Adapter OFF Auto Focus Center Saturation Normal Noise Reduction OFF Image Optimization NORMAL Saturation 2 NORMAL
3/7
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON Camera Model COOLPIX P5000 Camera Software COOLPIX P5000V1.0 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.7 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 36 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 0000:00:00 00:00:00 Exposure Time 5/792 sec F-Number f/4.3 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 64 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Auto Focal Length 7.50 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3648 Image Height 2736 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown Color Mode COLOR Image Quality NORMAL White Balance AUTO Image Sharpening AUTO Focus Mode AF-S Flash Setting NORMAL ISO Selection AUTO Image Adjustment AUTO Tone Compensation AUTO Lens Adapter OFF Auto Focus Center Saturation Normal Noise Reduction OFF Image Optimization NORMAL Saturation 2 NORMAL
1. Don't post two threads
2. Read the sticky and resize your pictures
4/7
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON Camera Model COOLPIX P5000 Camera Software Paint.NET v3.5.10 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.7 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 36 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:02:29 06:04:41 Exposure Time 1.0 sec F-Number f/2.7 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 800 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 7.50 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2736 Image Height 3648 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control High Gain Up Contrast Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown Color Mode COLOR Image Quality NORMAL White Balance AUTO Image Sharpening AUTO Focus Mode AF-S ISO Selection AUTO Image Adjustment AUTO Tone Compensation AUTO Lens Adapter OFF Auto Focus Center Saturation Normal Noise Reduction OFF Image Optimization NORMAL Saturation 2 NORMAL
5/7
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON Camera Model COOLPIX P5000 Camera Software Paint.NET v3.5.10 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.7 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 36 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 0000:00:00 00:00:00 Exposure Time 0.4 sec F-Number f/2.7 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 800 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 7.50 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3648 Image Height 2736 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control High Gain Up Contrast Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown Color Mode COLOR Image Quality NORMAL White Balance AUTO Image Sharpening AUTO Focus Mode AF-S ISO Selection AUTO Image Adjustment AUTO Tone Compensation AUTO Lens Adapter OFF Auto Focus Center Saturation Normal Noise Reduction OFF Image Optimization NORMAL Saturation 2 NORMAL
6/7
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON Camera Model COOLPIX P5000 Camera Software Paint.NET v3.5.10 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.7 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 36 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 0000:00:00 00:00:00 Exposure Time 1/8 sec F-Number f/2.7 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 513 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 7.50 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3648 Image Height 2736 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control High Gain Up Contrast Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown Color Mode COLOR Image Quality NORMAL White Balance AUTO Image Sharpening AUTO Focus Mode AF-S ISO Selection AUTO Image Adjustment AUTO Tone Compensation AUTO Lens Adapter OFF Auto Focus Center Saturation Normal Noise Reduction OFF Image Optimization NORMAL Saturation 2 NORMAL
>>2784334
Well?!
My 'tism demands the seventh one be posted.
>>2784341
My stomach and good taste couldn't handle another one though
Why do so many people on /p/ hate finishing their images so much? If you haven't processed it, it isn't done, and you shouldn't show it.
>>2784372
Not OP, but why do people on /p/ demand that we post-process our images? You arent getting an accurate representation of the camera's output if youre changing everything on the computer afterwards.
>>2784714
mfw
>>2784714
>You arent getting an accurate representation of the camera's output if youre changing everything on the computer afterwards.
Your camera is not outputting an accurate representation of the scene. It can not see as your eyes see. All it can do is try its best to grab as much information it can in the form of some numbers. If you aren't processing, you aren't getting a "pure view" of what the scene represented, you're just getting a pile of data that is all guess work on the part of some sofware engineer in a cubicle half way around the world five years ago. Your brain naturally corrects for contrast, brightness, color shifting, etc. So on the scene you see a punchy "auto toned" view, and the camera doesn't know that. You need to polish the image with processing in order to make it look the way it should, whether that look is "how it looked on the scene" or something more stylized in order to communicate something is up to you, but either way, if you aren't touching it, you're missing a third of the process in creating a finished image.
>>2784718
I would agree with you if 99% of people dodnt overprocess or incorrectly process their images.
But they do, so i dont.
>>2784723
Sure. Do your thing man. It looks like gravely dicks from a cell phone, but if that's what makes you happy, then I'm happy that you're happy.
>>2784729
How is that a response to what i said? You are apparently unable to retort the fact that most peoples' post-processing looks like shit. Just shut the fuck up if you arent going to address what anyone is saying.
>>2784741
Your opinion that every processing looks like shit (rounding from 99%) is not something I can argue with. It's your opinion. And in response, you choose not to process your photos at all, which looks objectively bad, especially when compared against what the scene would have looked like in person, but that's your right.
What, you want me to post photos that I believe are processed well to try to convince you, and then you say "not that looks like shit"? I'm not going to waste my time in such an obvious way on someone who behaves like you.
>>2784750
I didnt ask you to post photos. In my opinion a photo straight from the camera is a lot closer to reality than most people can achieve in post-processing. If you disagree then theres nothing i can say to change that.
>>2784762
>In my opinion a photo straight from the camera is a lot closer to reality than most people can achieve in post-processing.
This is objectively wrong, and it's stupid. If you believe this you have literally no clue how jpg engines work or how RAW files are tuned.
>>2784762
>In my opinion a photo straight from the camera is a lot closer to reality than most people can achieve in post-processing.
You are mathematically, logically, and obviously wrong. There's no point in arguing with you either, but let's go a little deeper:
Your camera doesn't know what it's looking at. It doesn't know the time of day, it doesn't know what colors it should be seeing, it doesn't know whether it's pointed at a sunset, a naked man, a church, a car, etc. All it can do is bring in some light, and try to record as much of it as it can. 4/7, for example, should be much darker (if you're going by what it looked like in real life). But your camera didn't know that, so it brightened it up, because it compared what it saw against some math on its chip and thought it was under exposed.
The same is true of 5/7 and 6/7. Your eyes would have corrected for the low saturation, the low contrast, and the bright light/dark sky, but your camera doesn't know how. There is absolutely no way that your camera could capture the scene as-is. Not just because it's a cheap point and shoot, but because it's just some metal and plastic and glass, and it doesn't have a brain.
It's not my opinion that it doesn't look how it did in real life, it's physically, technologically, and scientifically impossible that it would be accurate. It CAN be your opinion that you think it looks better aesthetically, and that's fine, but it's then my right as your viewer to say "You are presenting this photo to me, and I don't like it"
>>2784766
>>2784770
None of what you said changes the fact that post-processing can, and often does, take a photo further from reality than bringing it closer. People edit photos as they see fit because they like the "vibe" certain types of processing can provide.
Your position assumes honest and competent post-processing across the board. That's a ridiculous assumption to make.
>>2784330
>>2784779
>Your position assumes honest and competent post-processing across the board. That's a ridiculous assumption to make.
Your position is that a picture must reflect reality. This is an incorrect and frankly, autistic (literally), position.
There is nothing "dishonest" about processing away from the scene as seen just as there is nothing honest about processing with a goal of showing a scene as seen.
Your ideas about photography are fucked guy. Not because you have an aesthetic taste that's different from mine, but because you're assuming some kind of morality in an area there is none.
>>2784779
But nobody is saying "Process your photos poorly" are they? I don't see that.
>>2784372
That's a very valid complaint. I hate it because it's boring and I'm terrible at it.
It really does come down to being too lazy to put in some work and it's a damned shame.
>>2784786
Your position throughout the thread is that cameras are incapable of knowing what a scene looked like "in real life" (your words) and that post-processing is therefore necessary. When confronted with the obvious reality that most photographers aren't honest or competent in their processing, suddenly "real life" is no longer a goal and i'm imposing "morality."
Just stop, youre all over the fucking place.
>>2784787
Nobody is saying that. But thats what most people do, so demanding it of them is a retarded thing to do.
>>2784795
No, there are just multiple people telling you that your photos look bad, for multiple reasons. I'm "your camera doesn't know" guy. I am not "morality" guy.
>>2784797
A photo processed badly is better than a bad looking unprocessed photo. It at least shows effort and a desire to understand what needs to be done, if not an ability to do it.
>>2784762
>In my opinion a photo straight from the camera is a lot closer to reality than most people can achieve in post-processing.
look at
>>2784784
and
>>2784330
side by side (or open both in a tab and flip back and forth) and say with a straight face that yours looks more like the scene did in person.
>>2784798
They arent my photos. I said from the beginning i wasnt OP. Im just challenging your demand that people process their photos since most of the time said processing ends up looking like shit. Why that's triggered you i have no idea.
>>2784795
>there's only two people on /p/
Nope, I'm not that other guy.
I've posted twice in this thread and I'm definitely not the guy you think I am. Irrespective you're imposing morality by claiming one is honest and one is dishonest. Your language reveals your rigid, damaged thinking on the topic.
>>2784801
>a photo processed badly is better than a bad looking unprocessed photo
I'd argue the rate of badly processed photos is higher than bad looking unprocessed photos, but aside from that, i dont even agree with you. I dont care what level of "desire to understand" someone can show me by poorly editing a photo. So you and i can end there.
>>2784801
>unprocessed photo
There is literally no such thing as an unprocessed photo.
There are just photos where you make choices or where you let a computer make choices (even then, there's likely something like picture styles that you're choosing between), which is part of the reason this entire discussion is fucking retarded and indicative that the parties involved have no clue about how photography actually works.
>>2784819
>Usually ad hominem means youre about done. Speed it up.
Your thinking is both rigid and damaged. That's different from saying you're a fucking retard (which you are). This is the same mentality that believes everything on Fox News is real because it's on Fox News.
Also
>entirely ignoring actual points in two posts usually means you're wrong so go ahead and an hero
>>2784823
Nobody knows what youre even talking about at this point. You sound like you have a lot of pent up issues you need to vent about. Let it out, brother, youre safe here.
>>2784825
I'm good, but I hear a nitrogen tent is fairly painless.
>>2784823
And if you need me to respond to your so-called "point," you need to re-read the thread. The main guy i was responding to said that post-processing is necessary because cameras cant see the true reality that your eyes see. I said he's implying all editors are competent and honest in their processing. If the goal isnt to get to what your eyes saw, then i agree with you that no honesty is necessary.
>>2784829
I don't need you to do anything.
>honesty
And here you're still showing your ignorance and stupidity. You still seem to think that there's some level of honesty in almost any image. Hell, even in photojournalism there's little actual honesty because you're seeing a still frame of an event that spans time. You're also only seeing a single perspective of it that can paint it in a positive or negative light. Then there's how quality of light affects images, things like soft light versus hard light being used to draw attention to or from aspects of a subject. Compositions to minimize or maximize relative importance of to make some more complicated implications.
You've romanticized and constructed a nonworking, ignorant opinion of what "honesty" is. I suspect it's because you're new to photography and fairly ignorant of how all the factors fit together (like those people who shoot "only natural light" which is code for "I have no clue how to use strobes").
>>2784819
>They arent my photos
Okay, replace "your photos" with 'his photos" and answer the qustion.
Saying nobody should process because some people are bad at it is stupid.
Saying that SOOC is more accurate than processed is also stupid.
>>2784838
Why does this word trigger you? If you were capable of reading you'd know that i only introduced honesty as a factor when the other guy stated that the goal of processing is to get closer to what your eye truly saw. If you dont understand why putting what you actually saw to paper would matter when the stated goal is to show what you saw, then youre beyond help and just looking for a retarded argument. Have fun with that.
>>2784843
>saying nobody should process because some people are bad at it is stupid.
I didnt say nobody should. I said the guy upthread shouldnt autistically demand it when odds are the processing would be shit.
>saying that SOOC is more accurate than processed is also stupid.
It's true when the processing is shit. Which more often than not, it is.
>>2784845
Why do you keep avoiding the points being brought up?
Aside from that, nothing is "triggering" me. This entire conversation is beyond stupid because it misses so much of how both visual systems and camera systems work. That said, your inclusion of "honesty" is a moral judgement because cameras cannot faithfully recreate what was seen to any significant degree (quick, what's the correct map projection of the world), but if that's no what you meant, then you've spent far too much time defending an incorrect word choice for me to really believe you meant something different.
>>2784851
Wow, you really still dont understand.
The guy upthread defended processing as a means to shore up deficiencies between the camera capture and what the eye truly saw.
My response was that in order for processing to achieve that end, the editoe would need to be honest about what he saw.
The reason i used that particular word is that many will simply use contrast, saturation and other filters as a way to "ham up" what they actually saw because it looks better.
In that context (context which was fully available to.you had you been capable of reading), "honesty" is a perfectly fine word choice. The fact that you saw the word and immediately chose to go off on tangents about "morality" says a lot more about you than anything else.
>>2784851
Also, what points have i avoided? Please refer to them specifically.
>>2784859
>My response was that in order for processing to achieve that end, the editoe would need to be honest about what he saw.
>The reason i used that particular word is that many will simply use contrast, saturation and other filters as a way to "ham up" what they actually saw because it looks better.
"Ham up" IS NOT processing to be what they saw.
You're conflating two entirely different things.
>>2784864
Holy shit
Thats exactly what i mean
Hamming it up isnt an honest representation of what you saw
Thats all im saying you complete fucking retard.
>>2784867
No, you said that people will start with the fucking intention of accurately representing what they saw, but then because they're bad at it, they'll end up hamming it up. This is entirely different from tweaking shit to make something look better.
Doing something to make an image look better isn't the same thing as making it look like you saw it.
Starting with a goal of one thing and failing to achieve that goal is not dishonesty.
>you complete fucking retard.
I'm not the one that can't clearly communicate ideas friend.
>>2784873
Except thats never what i said. Ever.
Someone else said the goal of processing is to show people what you truly saw, and that therefore editing is necessary. I said that such a notion presumes that the editor is being honest about what he saw, which is not always the case.
I am blown away by your inability to understand such a simple back and forth, and your insistence on claiming i said things that were never said. Its either a 10/10 troll or you are a legit stupid person.
>>2784877
>Except thats never what i said. Ever.
>>2784859
>>My response was that in order for processing to achieve that end, the editoe would need to be honest about what he saw.
>>The reason i used that particular word is that many will simply use contrast, saturation and other filters as a way to "ham up" what they actually saw because it looks better.
Damn /p/, at it again with the autism
>>2784878
None of that equates to me saying that someone starts with the intention of being accurate and then ham it up because they are bad at editing.
All i said was that the guy demanding editing because it brings the image closer to what you saw is assuming people are honest and competent editors.
Do you see the difference?
>>2784880
>None of that equates to me saying that someone starts with the intention of being accurate and then ham it up because they are bad at editing.
Then it was entirely pointless to say. You're now literally arguing that you weren't arguing your point when you posted that. Lovely.
>>2784882
No im not.
Saying people ham up their photos as an example of dishonest editing has nothing to do with what their intentions were when they started the edit. That was a little quirk you threw in at the last minute because you have nothing left to say.
The only reason you think it doesnt comport with my position is because youve decided to strawman me the entire thread. If it wasnt deliberate you have severe reading problems. Im not kidding.
>>2784888
>an example of dishonest editing has nothing to do with what their intentions were when they started the edit.
If it has nothing to do with their intentions the how can it be dishonest?
I'm not strawmanning literally anything. You've stated everything I've called out. Hell, I've even given you two more correct alternatives to "honest" you could use, but because you think it is an actual moral issue you insist on continuing to use the word "honesty" and derivations thereof.
>>2784892
>intentions the how
*then
>>2784892
>you think it is an actual moral issue
LMAO
10/10, well done
OP are you from copenhagen? I literally just booked flights there for a holiday
>>2784931
Not OP but I am Danish.
Why.
WHY would you vacation in Denmark this time of year?
Genuinely curious.
