/int/ - International

I think both look bad. The green of the "original" looks desaturated, the colours in the shopped version look oversaturated. You were right to edit it, but you overdid it.

>>6109 It doesn't look desaturated, you're just comparing it to a wrong kind of environment. There's nothing wrong with the original and editing photos to make them look "better" is just cringe.

>>6130 Photos don’t represent reality at all. This scene looks much different in reality and OP is the only one who has actually seen it. So if he thinks the original photo doesn’t look good or accurate enough, he has every right to edit it to make it seem more like reality.

>>6133 >Photos don’t represent reality at all. They do. Photos represent reality 100%. It's your mind that doesn't. When you look at things with your eyes your mind immediately alters the memory of it. Some people do it more than others and some can't even tell when they're even altering the memory that was already altered because they just like the colors better in the edited version. What you remember seeing is not what you actually saw.

>>6130 If I look at my screen and compare the green to what I see outside of my window, then the green of all plants outside is more vibrant. Maybe it's a particularly non-vibrant plant, but I think it's a little bit undersaturated. Obviously, my screen is far from a calibrated, so take that with a grain of salt. To achieve a professional level of white balance and saturation, you need calibrated screens or printers. For my personal taste, on my setup, the optimal colour would be between the two images OP posted. Also, why did OP cut the poor fox's paw?

>>6134 That's just retarded. You're saying that some pre-loaded colour profile inside your camera is better than one manually tuned for the environment of the shot. If you take a camera and take a photo at noon outside, just after sundown and then inside, you'll need three different profiles. The camera will attempt to correct for the white balance, but it will most likely not be as good as what someone would do in post-production.

>>6135 >If I look at my screen and compare the green to what I see outside of my window, then the green of all plants outside is more vibrant. Plants are not the same color everywhere in the world. >For my personal taste, on my setup, the optimal colour would be between the two images OP posted But your personal taste doesn't represent reality.

>>6139 >But your personal taste doesn't represent reality. Neither does a combination of red, green and blue light, nor a combination of cyan, magenta, yellow and black ink. Yet, here we are. Want to be a sperg about it and just say all photos are fake or shall we discuss how to approximate reality the closest within the usual technical limitations?

>>6140 But you weren't discussing how to approximate reality but what you like more. That was my point. Editing photos to something that you like more is cringe. It doesn't represent reality.

>>6142 OP asked >Which one is the best in your opinion? I answered. What the fuck is your problem?

>>6143 You called it desaturated, which it isn't, because you were comparing it to the wrong environment. And that's the problem. That you (and many others) think there's only one kind of environment and you start to edit all your photos to look like the idea you have in your head of what you think nature looks like. You get detached from nature and miss out on all the variety of nature.

>>6149 I explicitly said that I compared it to the view out of my Swiss window. Maybe, the plants in Israel are less vibrantly green. Who knows.

What is it? It's clearly some manner of canid but I don't know which kind.

I prefer the first.

>>6156 Probably a young Arabian wolf, African wolf or a golden jackal, or some kind of hybrid. Doesn't really look like any of them but it could be some rare pheno or if it's a hybrid then who knows what they would look like. It's not any kind of fox at least, that's for sure.

>>6160 Backstabber

>>6166 It just looks oversaturated to an unnatural degree, then again my monitor overdoes reds so it could be that.

>>6169 Okay, at least we agree that the second one is oversaturated

>>6156 Golden jackal.

>>6109 The original indeed looks desaturated, it was a taken with the east German Carl Zeiss jena 135 mm f3.5; this desaturated hipster look is often commented as a characteristic of the lens. But for me the problem was that the jackal itself is out of focus while the foliage is on focus. I tried to darken and blue the foliage while sharpening the jackal, but seeing now the result looks even worse. These are other photos of the same day, unedited.

>>6135 >Also, why did OP cut the poor fox's paw? I rotated the image to make the jackal eyes a straight line, I had to take from the pawn.

>>6184 Huh?

>>6185 While keeping the eyes more or less center on the "ruler of thirds" upper right intersection.

>>6185 I also removed the eye's rheum with the heal tool, lmao

>>6183 >the problem was that the jackal itself is out of focus while the foliage is on focus. Sadly, that's nothing that can be fixed after the shot. That's the reason I bought a modern mirrorless camera with ~AI focussing. I hate everything marketed as AI, but if pattern recognition helps me reliably focus on animals' eyes, then I'll accept it in my camera. >>6186 I actually like the slightly tilted head. It's the typical canine "I don't fully understand what's going on here" pose. It looks cuter than the tilted legs the straightened picture produces.

>>6186 I think that would've been possible without cutting the paw.

>>6189 Which you think is the strongest photo in this group? I'll crop, edit, darken, lighten, after.

>>6107 The orange is too saturated. Also, it looks blurry, try to sharpen it in some way. And you shouldn't have rotated it, at least not in that direction. It looks like she's about to fall.

>>6195 Bonus

>>6195 I'm not a fan of the first two pictures. I don't see the connection with the grass in the foreground and the people. I like the animal's posture in the fourth but the plant kind of ruins it for me. 3 is nice, but is the face really in focus if you check on a big screen? (phoneposting, sorry) >>6197 1: nice if you can get rid of the blurry blob in the foreground 2: sadly out of focus 3: I see some potential here

>>6199 Are you focussing manually? None of the kids in the first photo are in focus. The focus in the second picture seems rather random as well. The only good subject might have been the trisomy 21 kid, but the focus is somewhat behind. I can't see any exif data, but what's your aperture? Can you close it a bit and maybe bump the iso or exposure time up? A less narrow depth of field might help you in case you're only a little bit off with the focus.

>>6201 Yes, manually, I'm adapting the lens on a sony a7m1. The photos of the kids and the religious people were a test, I set f5.6-8-11 and focal length to infinity. On the viewfinder and magnified they looked okay, and I'm surprised they were out of focus, I didn't set shutter speed to 1/200 or something like that, which may be the reason... But I worry the lens is de-centered or something similar which I don't know how it's called. Like for the photo with down syndrome kid I focused completely on the fire, yet what is on focus is the crowd on the background, really strange.

>>6202 Anyway I edited one of the photo on photoshop with a square crop. It's really hard to tell when an image is being improved vs when the image was bydlo and artificial, specially with vignetting.