/fa/ - Fashion

>this thread again

this uses gigapan.

>>4474
> Well, there's your problem.pdf

>>4472
Define "good color."

>>4477
Kodachrome

I see this phaggot is back.
>>4478
Oh really that is up for debate some think Kodachrome is shit. Other think Velvia is great. It is all a matter of tastes.

>>4473
>>4479
Only because no one can provide any examples.

>>4480
the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence

>>4481
Less talk and more photos please. This is an imageboard after all.

>>4472
>10
You can have one, which is one more than this thread deserves.


<table class="exif" id="exif1490306716902"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Equipment Make</td><td>FUJIFILM</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Model</td><td>FinePix X100</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>Capture One 9 Macintosh</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum Lens Aperture</td><td>f/2.0</td></tr><tr><td>Sensing Method</td><td>One-Chip Color Area</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>300 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>300 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Time</td><td>1/750 sec</td></tr><tr><td>F-Number</td><td>f/2.8</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Program</td><td>Aperture Priority</td></tr><tr><td>ISO Speed Rating</td><td>200</td></tr><tr><td>Lens Aperture</td><td>f/2.8</td></tr><tr><td>Brightness</td><td>6.6 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Bias</td><td>0 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Metering Mode</td><td>Average</td></tr><tr><td>Light Source</td><td>Unknown</td></tr><tr><td>Flash</td><td>No Flash, Compulsory</td></tr><tr><td>Focal Length</td><td>33.00 mm</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>2048</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>1365</td></tr><tr><td>Rendering</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Mode</td><td>Auto</td></tr><tr><td>White Balance</td><td>Auto</td></tr><tr><td>Scene Capture Type</td><td>Standard</td></tr><tr><td>Subject Distance Range</td><td>Unknown</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>4483
what videogame is this from?

>>4484
Kek. It is outrageously crisp.

>>4483
Congrats. My new desktop background

sigma wins again


<table class="exif" id="exif1490311876207"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Equipment Make</td><td>SIGMA</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Model</td><td>SIGMA DP2 Merrill</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows)</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum Lens Aperture</td><td>f/2.8</td></tr><tr><td>Sensing Method</td><td>One-Chip Color Area</td></tr><tr><td>Focal Length (35mm Equiv)</td><td>45 mm</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Image Orientation</td><td>Top, Left-Hand</td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>240 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>240 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Image Created</td><td>2015:12:22 17:59:31</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Time</td><td>1/100 sec</td></tr><tr><td>F-Number</td><td>f/8.0</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Program</td><td>Aperture Priority</td></tr><tr><td>ISO Speed Rating</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Lens Aperture</td><td>f/8.0</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Bias</td><td>1 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Metering Mode</td><td>Pattern</td></tr><tr><td>Flash</td><td>No Flash</td></tr><tr><td>Focal Length</td><td>30.00 mm</td></tr><tr><td>Color Space Information</td><td>Uncalibrated</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>1200</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>1500</td></tr><tr><td>Rendering</td><td>Custom</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Mode</td><td>Auto</td></tr><tr><td>White Balance</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>Scene Capture Type</td><td>Standard</td></tr><tr><td>Unique Image ID</td><td>3030343134383436918F375544443632</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>4487

>not cropping out that bottom left area

>>4488

>cropping out that bottom left area

>>4487
now this is digital done right.

>>4489

Why wouldn't you?


<table class="exif" id="exif1490312490599"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Equipment Make</td><td>SIGMA</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Model</td><td>SIGMA DP2 Merrill</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows)</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum Lens Aperture</td><td>f/2.8</td></tr><tr><td>Sensing Method</td><td>One-Chip Color Area</td></tr><tr><td>Focal Length (35mm Equiv)</td><td>45 mm</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Image Orientation</td><td>Top, Left-Hand</td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>240 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>240 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Image Created</td><td>2015:12:22 17:59:31</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Time</td><td>1/100 sec</td></tr><tr><td>F-Number</td><td>f/8.0</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Program</td><td>Aperture Priority</td></tr><tr><td>ISO Speed Rating</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Lens Aperture</td><td>f/8.0</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Bias</td><td>1 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Metering Mode</td><td>Pattern</td></tr><tr><td>Flash</td><td>No Flash</td></tr><tr><td>Focal Length</td><td>30.00 mm</td></tr><tr><td>Color Space Information</td><td>Uncalibrated</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>1200</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>1500</td></tr><tr><td>Rendering</td><td>Custom</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Mode</td><td>Auto</td></tr><tr><td>White Balance</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>Scene Capture Type</td><td>Standard</td></tr><tr><td>Unique Image ID</td><td>3030343134383436918F375544443632</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>4486
Well that was unexpected.

>>4491

because the photo is much better with its inclusion. it makes the scene much more real and insightful. your crop just makes it look like a gay video game render or a page out of the apartment brochure.

>>4493

The guy working on the balcony doesn't make it look real, no. It's the unfinished construction that makes it. Gotcha.

>>4491
There's a definite loss of impact / sense of vertiginous height.

>>4487
GJ

>>4494

the unfinished construction is a crack in the facade, you fucking visually illiterate pleb.

>>4472
>good color

can you be anymore vague as fuck. also "Good Color" is subjective as fuck as well.

why dont you describe what good color is

>>4497
>good color is vague

Digifriends looking for excuses again I see.

>>4479
>>4497
>i-its all relative
good lord.

>>4474
nahhh, but it has a good story

>>4473

Report thread and hide it.

Oh wait, /p/ has no mods.

>>4472

>>4493
No it doesn't. It makes the photographer look like a lazy fuck. its just sloppy.

>>4504
also this

Mr Softee

Sunny day umbrella lady

Windows 10 Home Edition

<table class="exif" id="exif1490354314276"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Equipment Make</td><td>Canon</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Model</td><td>Canon PowerShot G10</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum Lens Aperture</td><td>f/4.5</td></tr><tr><td>Sensing Method</td><td>One-Chip Color Area</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Image Orientation</td><td>Top, Left-Hand</td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>180 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>180 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Image Created</td><td>2013:02:19 02:25:34</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Time</td><td>1/60 sec</td></tr><tr><td>F-Number</td><td>f/4.5</td></tr><tr><td>ISO Speed Rating</td><td>200</td></tr><tr><td>Lens Aperture</td><td>f/4.5</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Bias</td><td>0 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Metering Mode</td><td>Pattern</td></tr><tr><td>Flash</td><td>No Flash, Auto</td></tr><tr><td>Focal Length</td><td>30.50 mm</td></tr><tr><td>Color Space Information</td><td>sRGB</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>600</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>800</td></tr><tr><td>Rendering</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Mode</td><td>Auto</td></tr><tr><td>White Balance</td><td>Auto</td></tr><tr><td>Scene Capture Type</td><td>Standard</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>4510
What a strange looking man.

>>4511
not bad

>>4475
>>4483
>>4487
>>4502
>>4505
>>4506
>>4507
>>4508
>>4509
>this is what counts as good color on digital


SAD!

<table class="exif" id="exif1490367764800"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Equipment Make</td><td>Panasonic</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Model</td><td>DMC-G7</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>RawTherapee 5.0-r1-gtk3</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum Lens Aperture</td><td>f/5.3</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>3980</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>2004</td></tr><tr><td>Compression Scheme</td><td>Uncompressed</td></tr><tr><td>Pixel Composition</td><td>RGB</td></tr><tr><td>Image Orientation</td><td>Top, Left-Hand</td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>300 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>300 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Image Data Arrangement</td><td>Chunky Format</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Time</td><td>8 sec</td></tr><tr><td>F-Number</td><td>f/22.0</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Program</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>ISO Speed Rating</td><td>200</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Bias</td><td>0 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Metering Mode</td><td>Pattern</td></tr><tr><td>Flash</td><td>No Flash, Compulsory</td></tr><tr><td>Focal Length</td><td>25.00 mm</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>4487
Does this look greenish to anyone?

>>4514
Is this a joke?

>>4474
time to move forward on the back of the bus, brutal

I wonder whether she jumped in front of a bus to avoid mohammed or that mohammed bumped her under it. but I guess she is one of the dead people

>>4511
hey thats my G10 with CCD Sensor Technology™ shot ;));)

>>4513
>not bad
i did a big print. looks gorgeous.

>>4501
>Oh wait, /p/ has no mods.
that explains why its SO good.

>>4503
yes it does you cuck mongoloid with zero visual literacy. shot is already sloppy. it has a faggot and stupid words and numbers, it already failed as a super pure autistic german style shot. so it works better with the unfinished shit, it adds interest, get it? of course you dont, so off urself today fag ass.

>>4516
no, its just a digicuck being mentally ill.

>>4504
whoa

>>4513
Filmfags btfo.

You need to counter with some oc, mangina.

m a g i c c o l o r s


<table class="exif" id="exif1490378778933"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Equipment Make</td><td>Canon</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Model</td><td>Canon EOS 7D Mark II</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Windows)</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum Lens Aperture</td><td>f/2.8</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>300 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>300 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Image Created</td><td>2017:02:09 23:54:38</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Time</td><td>1/1250 sec</td></tr><tr><td>F-Number</td><td>f/3.5</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Program</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>ISO Speed Rating</td><td>2000</td></tr><tr><td>Lens Aperture</td><td>f/3.5</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Bias</td><td>0 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Metering Mode</td><td>Pattern</td></tr><tr><td>Flash</td><td>No Flash, Compulsory</td></tr><tr><td>Focal Length</td><td>185.00 mm</td></tr><tr><td>Rendering</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Mode</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>White Balance</td><td>Auto</td></tr><tr><td>Scene Capture Type</td><td>Standard</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>4504
This is very cool. Get rid of "Sprint". I know it isn't easy. I know it's not true to what was really there. Doesn't matter. Do it.

>>4526
It'll be cool in a few years, like old Pacific Bell signs.

>>4523
>>4525
No.

>>4526
shh. he knows way better than you, so stay silent with such ""advice"".

>>4525
wtf i love ricohbro now!

>>4502
Is this out on the rez?

>>4515
Only in the tinted windows, otherwise no. Maybe you need to tweak your monitor.

<table class="exif" id="exif1490395201141"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Equipment Make</td><td>NIKON CORPORATION</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Model</td><td>NIKON D80</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum Lens Aperture</td><td>f/1.7</td></tr><tr><td>Sensing Method</td><td>One-Chip Color Area</td></tr><tr><td>Color Filter Array Pattern</td><td>834</td></tr><tr><td>Focal Length (35mm Equiv)</td><td>75 mm</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Image Orientation</td><td>Top, Left-Hand</td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>300 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>300 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Image Created</td><td>2017:03:24 18:26:01</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Time</td><td>1/180 sec</td></tr><tr><td>F-Number</td><td>f/8.0</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Program</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>ISO Speed Rating</td><td>400</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Bias</td><td>0 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Metering Mode</td><td>Pattern</td></tr><tr><td>Light Source</td><td>Unknown</td></tr><tr><td>Flash</td><td>No Flash</td></tr><tr><td>Focal Length</td><td>50.00 mm</td></tr><tr><td>Color Space Information</td><td>sRGB</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>900</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>603</td></tr><tr><td>Rendering</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Mode</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>White Balance</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>Scene Capture Type</td><td>Standard</td></tr><tr><td>Gain Control</td><td>Low Gain Up</td></tr><tr><td>Contrast</td><td>Hard</td></tr><tr><td>Saturation</td><td>High</td></tr><tr><td>Sharpness</td><td>Hard</td></tr><tr><td>Subject Distance Range</td><td>Unknown</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>4515
windows are blue tinted green, the rest is a delicious pasty soft apricot hue.

>>4532
did he melt??

>>4526
>I know it's not true to what was really there.

>caring about this
>not making your photographs look however you want them to look like because "muh rulez"

Digital cameras capture light objectively.

And objectively, everyday reality is fucking boring as shit because there's a huge, white sheet of ambient light hanging over everything 8 hours a day.

>>4536
>Digital cameras capture light objectively.

Do colored signs look like this in real life?


<table class="exif" id="exif1490462601740"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>ACD Systems Digital Imaging</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Image Orientation</td><td>Top, Left-Hand</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>2048</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>1536</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>4537
If you squint.

>>4526
its actually incredibly easy to remove it there since there's plenty of pattern to clone from

>>4508
finally someone got that shot of the high line. looks nice, great job

>>4536
>>4537
Its not objective because the camera itself is an observer, interpreting the various wavelengths of light through an adjustable aperture and shutter speed.

Also check my pic, there's decent color.


<table class="exif" id="exif1490470086097"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Equipment Make</td><td>NIKON CORPORATION</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Model</td><td>NIKON D3200</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>Ver.1.00</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum Lens Aperture</td><td>f/3.5</td></tr><tr><td>Sensing Method</td><td>One-Chip Color Area</td></tr><tr><td>Color Filter Array Pattern</td><td>36202</td></tr><tr><td>Focal Length (35mm Equiv)</td><td>27 mm</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Image Orientation</td><td>Top, Left-Hand</td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>300 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>300 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Image Created</td><td>2016:11:03 16:01:29</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Time</td><td>1/200 sec</td></tr><tr><td>F-Number</td><td>f/13.0</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Program</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>ISO Speed Rating</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Bias</td><td>0 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Metering Mode</td><td>Pattern</td></tr><tr><td>Light Source</td><td>Unknown</td></tr><tr><td>Flash</td><td>No Flash</td></tr><tr><td>Focal Length</td><td>18.00 mm</td></tr><tr><td>Color Space Information</td><td>sRGB</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>6016</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>4000</td></tr><tr><td>Rendering</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Mode</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>Scene Capture Type</td><td>Standard</td></tr><tr><td>Gain Control</td><td>None</td></tr><tr><td>Contrast</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Saturation</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Sharpness</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Subject Distance Range</td><td>Unknown</td></tr><tr><td>ISO Speed Used</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Image Quality</td><td>FINE</td></tr><tr><td>White Balance</td><td>AUTO</td></tr><tr><td>Focus Mode</td><td>MANUAL</td></tr><tr><td>Flash Compensation</td><td>0.0 EV</td></tr><tr><td>ISO Speed Requested</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Flash Bracket Compensation</td><td>0.0 EV</td></tr><tr><td>AE Bracket Compensation</td><td>0.0 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Lens Type</td><td>Nikon G Series</td></tr><tr><td>Lens Range</td><td>18.0 - 55.0 mm; f/3.5 - f/5.6</td></tr><tr><td>Shooting/Bracketing Mode</td><td>Single Frame/Off</td></tr><tr><td>Noise Reduction</td><td>OFF</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Actuations</td><td>4295</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>4541
>Also check my pic, there's decent color.

Are you even trying?

>>4504
still have yet to see a recent picture that has even come close to touching this one

>>4504

>apple
>sprint
>halal

'Murica

>>4517
nope, alive

>>4544

more like

>NYC

>>4541
I fixed your shitty color, thank me later.

t. photoshop master

I mean, who even cares about gear and lenses and shit when you're a photoshop master and can manipulate pixels directly like a wizard.

>>4502
Sheit, I could do this all day.

http://go.ascii.jp/nbd

>>4550
...

>>4550
but thats the archaetypical digisnap with lame colors.

>b-but its subjective
loooooooool

Does it count if it's mildly color-tuned in gimp?


<table class="exif" id="exif1490505664402"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Equipment Make</td><td>Panasonic</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Model</td><td>DMC-GH2</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>Windows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Image Orientation</td><td>Top, Left-Hand</td></tr><tr><td>Image Created</td><td>2017:03:23 14:36:34</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Time</td><td>1/640 sec</td></tr><tr><td>F-Number</td><td>f/2.8</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Program</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>ISO Speed Rating</td><td>160</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Bias</td><td>0 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Metering Mode</td><td>Pattern</td></tr><tr><td>Flash</td><td>No Flash</td></tr><tr><td>Focal Length</td><td>20.00 mm</td></tr><tr><td>Color Space Information</td><td>sRGB</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>4550
I tried to salvage it and stuff.

Woah, such tint, such atmosphere


<table class="exif" id="exif1490509458703"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Image Orientation</td><td>Top, Left-Hand</td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>72 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>72 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Image Created</td><td>2017:03:26 12:20:12</td></tr><tr><td>Color Space Information</td><td>Uncalibrated</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>1445</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>960</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>4493
>>4496
agreed. without it the image is.. sterile

>>4540
It was a hassle to get - handheld HDR. Walking with someone who has a camera is a drag.

>>4545
wait for real, nice

>>4545
looked it up, her name was aysha frade, she is dead

>>4472
Why is this board so obsessed with that image?

>>4560
because muh vintage film,

it is pretty boring to be honest

>>4560
Because it has good colors. Something digital photographers don't know of.

>>4560
Because film is a meme here.

>>4560

This board =/= one shitposter.

I mean, collectively, this board is nothing but shitposters, but don't mistake the bored manipulations of a single person for consensus across the board. His last thread with this image was successful, so why not stir the same shit with the same stick again?

>>4564
>His last thread with this image was successful

I didn't see anyone post any digital images with good color.

If I was trolling surely it would be easy to prove me wrong?

>>4565

It was successful by the metric that it got a ton of replies.

why don't you explain what you mean by "good" color? That would be a strong first step, because otherwise it's just a guessing game where every answer is wrong.

>>4566
>why don't you explain what you mean by "good" color

Digital photographers everyone.

Good bait.

>>4567

I actually shoot mostly film and agree with the basic contention that it has better color. That doesn't mean you get to be a worthless weasel troll and not define your terms. Sorry kiddo.

>>4499
This is art.
Almost literally everything is based on taste you fucking retard

>>4570
>i-its subjective
holy shit lol

>>4571
>I-I-I only get a kick out of trolling
Fuck me up senpai pethatic

>>4572
>pethatic
lmfao read a book.

>>4565
Is this digital?

Looks suspiciously graded.

>>4573
why do you think hes taking photos shitty photos? lmao

>>4547
whats the point of digital anyway actually...

Photography is a gimmick now a days considering the Iphone 7 beats out anything within triple its price range

>>4575
>taking photos shitty photos
lmfao read a book.

>>4577
this.

>>4552
>>>4550 (You)
>but thats the archaetypical digisnap with lame colors.
>>b-but its subjective
>loooooooool
Found the guy on Instagram, hes nbd but doesn't edit for shit

whats wrong OP, sad you got BTFO in less than 10 posts last time?

>>4534
Been dead for a while, cow lethers tough as shit, its why they make things out of it. Takes longer to break down/doesnt make as good eating as the cows insides so its there longer

>>4580
>things that never happened: the post

>>4565
your film was scanned with a scanner, are you going to tell me that scanners can capture the " better" colour of film while much more expensive cameras can't?

>>4583
the scanner is scanning a compressed piece of finished media. digicamera is attempting to capture fucking reality by electronic means and thats why it fails.

I like this one.

>>4584
the tech behind a camera and scanner are the same

<table class="exif" id="exif1490878424672"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Equipment Make</td><td>NIKON CORPORATION</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Model</td><td>NIKON D7200</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows)</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum Lens Aperture</td><td>f/3.5</td></tr><tr><td>Sensing Method</td><td>One-Chip Color Area</td></tr><tr><td>Color Filter Array Pattern</td><td>802</td></tr><tr><td>Focal Length (35mm Equiv)</td><td>27 mm</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Image Orientation</td><td>Top, Left-Hand</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>700 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Image Created</td><td>2017:03:26 20:14:38</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Time</td><td>1/30 sec</td></tr><tr><td>F-Number</td><td>f/3.5</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Program</td><td>Aperture Priority</td></tr><tr><td>ISO Speed Rating</td><td>560</td></tr><tr><td>Lens Aperture</td><td>f/3.5</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Bias</td><td>-1 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Metering Mode</td><td>Pattern</td></tr><tr><td>Light Source</td><td>Unknown</td></tr><tr><td>Flash</td><td>No Flash, Compulsory</td></tr><tr><td>Focal Length</td><td>18.00 mm</td></tr><tr><td>Rendering</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Mode</td><td>Auto</td></tr><tr><td>White Balance</td><td>Auto</td></tr><tr><td>Scene Capture Type</td><td>Standard</td></tr><tr><td>Gain Control</td><td>Low Gain Up</td></tr><tr><td>Contrast</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Saturation</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Sharpness</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Subject Distance Range</td><td>Unknown</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>3048655
little too much sharpening desu

>>4583
Please don't shatter their illusions of superiority. Film phags have to try, and feel all smug about their choice. I shot film my whole life, and shoot digital now. It is called moving forward.
>>4584
Really?
The film scanner uses exactly the same tech to create an images as the cameras do. Also they have to go another step of blowing the image size up. Your scanned film is now digital with all the same flaws you are claiming digital cameras have. So your argument is invalid.
Also the image I posted is your argument.

>>4590
>I shot film my whole life, and shoot digital now. It is called moving forward.

You are moving backward when it comes to the image. All digital gives you is more convenience.

>>4591
Yeah okay youngster.

>>4592
It's the truth. Aside from maybe some low-light scenarios film will always look better. I don't know why others can't see how lackluster digital looks most of the time.

<table class="exif" id="exif1490908106087"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Color Space Information</td><td>sRGB</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>4256</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>2128</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>4594 1

2

>>4595

3

>>4596

4

>>4597

5

>>4584
>>4576
>>4593
yup

6


<table class="exif" id="exif1490909931836"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Color Space Information</td><td>sRGB</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>2500</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>1664</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>4594
>>4595
>>4596
>>4597
>>4598
>>4599
So what your saying is the a warm fade over everything is great colour?


<table class="exif" id="exif1490911279881"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>GIMP 2.8.14</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Image Orientation</td><td>Top, Left-Hand</td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>72 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>72 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Image Created</td><td>2017:03:31 07:57:59</td></tr><tr><td>Color Space Information</td><td>Uncalibrated</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>756</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>1499</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>4600
>>3048808
Excited to see your work!

7


<table class="exif" id="exif1490911749709"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Color Space Information</td><td>sRGB</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>1664</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>2500</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>4601

8


<table class="exif" id="exif1490912116424"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Color Space Information</td><td>sRGB</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>1500</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>1500</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>4601
>Excited to see your work!
>>4602
>WarmColorFade.jpg

justassblasteddigiplebs.org

>>4573
Hahahaha the funy thing here is that you should read a fucking book because you didn't get the reference

>>4604
>i was only pretending!
lmfao go grab a book m8.

>>4591
>>4593
>>4600

So why do you all avoid the perfectly valid question about how a scanner can apparently capture your great film color, while a camera cannot even though they use the same technology

>>4504
under exposed garbage

>>4607
put some effort into your shit bait you lazy faggot

>>4606
I'm not avoiding it, I just didn't find the point worth addressing; anyone who can't work it out for themselves is too stupid to understand the explaination anyhow.
But for your edification, here goes:
>digi can capture x range of light to dark, for red green and blue, for any given exposure, and record it as 12/14/16 bit colour
>film can capture y range of light to dark, in red green and blue, also cyan if it's Superia, or simply within a certain spectrum for b&w, and records it on a scale with effectively no fixed gradations, it is infinitely nuanced within it's working range, however it is much smaller in range than y, lets call it q
>with digi, your output is a jpeg, it can show 8 bit colour. You choose how you want to stretch or compress x to plot along your jpegs 8 bit colour spectrum, but you can't fit more in than was there to begin with, and you can't fill in the gaps if you want to stretch out your original tonal range
>y is much larger than x, but q fits inside x, so we can scan film with a digital camera. Yes, film compresses your data. the cam plots q along x, and breaks up what was infinitely nuanced there into a 16 bit scale
Hey, it if fits inside, and we're breaking it up, doesn't that give us worse tonality than digital?!
>No. Digital takes a scene, and assigns each point it can see to the colour value it detects. Film takes a scene, and grows a silver crystal of the size it deems approprite for the amount of each colour it sees, and then uses that crystal to grow a dye cloud of a corresponding size and intensity for each colour. This being a physical, chemical process subjects it to a degree of variability. The clouds created at any one point are random within a certain range. This is called noise. This randomness creates beautiful organic gradations between colours and tones, as opposed to a hard break from 194, 45, 67 to 193, 45, 67, or even worse 194, 194, 194 to 193, 193, 193.

once again digisluggers are anally raped into oblivion.

eagerly waiting for the 3rd iteration of this comfy thread.

>>4609
>when you look at a high res film scan at 300%, it looks like rainbow vomit
>but when we back away, we realise we couldn't see the forest for the trees
>film noise contributes to a higher purpose
>and when we stretch it out in editing, to acheive our desired contrast, we don't see too little butter spread over too much toast, like digital, where what was a jump from 194 to 193 becomes a jump from 195 to 192. We see the amplitude of the variation in our noise increase, but the randomisation persists, and still creates in our feeble human brains the impression of a continuous tonal gradation
OK, but forget all this smooth tones bullshit, can't I just copy the colours in photoshop?
>you can try, but probably not. What makes film great is not only the incredibly broad range of colours you can capture, but also the way colours are captured ~in relation to each other~
>your digital camera will record the same numerical value every time it sees a certain colour for a certain amount of time. The slightly different colour one pixel width away from it will always be recorded with the same slightly different number. There is no setting you can change that will change what the camera sees and writes down. You can only change what it translates that into as output. With film, literally ever single frame of every single roll would have recorded those two points with two different "values"
>you can change your film to change the way you capture light
>this means that with velvia your shadows might be purple and your greens might be eye searing
>you can saturate your greens and shift your shadows to purple if you want. But the camera didn't see that. in fact almost everything it saw in the shadows was captured in the green channel. So those two green number might not be very far apart to start with. But you want to stretch those out. So say you've taken those 100 steps and turned it into 200. But you haven't; you've now got 100 steps that are twice as large.

>>4611
>based velveeta on the other hand can have a whole universe of infinite variation between it's shadows and its raging greens, because that's what it's meant to do. It never has to render natural skin tones, or to balance tungsten light
>~it is the right tool for the job~ not a fucking shifting spanner
>your film "emulation" is just a program that says "change colour 46 to colour 87!"
>it's doesn't even have colour 46.5, let alone colour F*cg3

Could you achieve something like this with digital? The colors are saturated without hurting your eyes like I often see it with digital.

Don't know enough about color and editing to really articulate myself.

>>4613
Also the light and colors here are like an oil painting. I know the photographer of this is very skilled but I just have yet to see something like this with digital. Even in movies.

digilarvae will never touch this kino.

>>4480
>says the guy who will reject any sample out of hand
Flickr is fucking full of digital shots with amazing color. But you probably can't see that because you're a hipster.

>>4616
>Flickr is fucking full of digital shots with amazing color

If that's true you should be easily able to show me 3 examples.

>>4474
"time to move forward - Europe 2017 London crusade"

Ironic...

What a stupid fucking challenge. Anyone that posts a digital shot will just get shot down by filmfags, because colour is very subjective by nature. 'Good colour.' Fuck off.

>>4619
>because colour is very subjective by nature

So according to you good art doesn't exist. There are no good photographs. No good paintings. No good movies. No good music. After all it's all subjective!

>>4620

Can you quantify goodness?