No.2
Do you ever aim at making the result of your work to represent the reality in terms of colour and tonality?
Those who use film get this by default but digital tech is another story as it is today. Do you ever miss what film gives or you are perfectly fine with what you get with digits?
No.11
>1st when you speak english, the simpler the better.
Yes.
I still use film when I can. I love the look and feeling more involved in the print making process. I think grain can be aesthetically pleasing given what you are trying to say. On the other hand its expensive and working digitally is much cheaper.
No.24
>>11>1st when you speak english, the simpler the better.>Yes.I can't deal with it. My russian speech is often diificult to understand - but only for those who cannot comprehend. Some other people say that I express myself perfectly - they are minority though.
No.26
>>24You're really good for a non-native, and you got your point across to me. Somethings don't translate well when you think one language and have to write in another and it took me a minute to break down.
No.30
>>26Could you name them please? I am interested.
I understand what you are talking about.
No.36
I usually edit my photos to look deliberately dreamy and unreal, like you'd see on a chillwave album cover (muted or highly saturated colors, fairly high contrast, copious gradient usage, etc.).
I've never used a film camera in my life, so I have no clue what it's like. Editing is my favorite part of the process of photography, so probably not, though. I do love the idea of lomography, but it's not like similar lo-fi images can't be created using digital equipment.
No.41
I wish it wasn't so fucking hard to achieve perfect white balance and such. I want a good representation of reality because you can always edit the RAW later.
No.43
I tell you hwat, if fucking mainstream raw-development programs (I'm looking at you, Lr and CRaw) had vectorscopes, we wouldn't have such a shitty time doing colour correction.
Instead, the fagits in movie production have like 3 methods of doing colour correction.
Give me a break.
(I use kgamut to check my shit post-render, but I'd very much like an on-screen analyser or something of sorts)
>pic related, le edgy teen purple/blue "sex is life" look I achieved
No.47
>>41If you're using a digital camera just carry around a white card and manual it.
No.76
>>43Can you tell us more about vectorscopes?
No.95
>>76Sorry for the late post, had trouble accessing 8ch.
A vectorscope (in colour-grading) is basically a hue-saturation wheel and a cloud of dots overlapped on it. Those dots are the active colours in your image.
Thus, it's easier to get the colours to look right (complementary, triad etc.) when you have some sort of a visual feedback of the tones you use.
No.96
>>95I see now.
What if somebody (me possibly) embeds EXIF data reading along with vectorscoping?
No.97
>>96Then you'd have the vectorscope in the EXIF as well, but you'll still need something to display it.
>pic unrelated, had lulz No.98
>>97>Then you'd have the vectorscope in the EXIF as well, but you'll still need something to display it.I cannot understand you.
Vectorscope in EXIF? What for? Everything what is needed is counting all HSL values, rendering a rounded pic from them and caching them like thumbnails are cached.
/p/ is small board, O think that Hotwheels will let us implement it.
No.99
>>98>I cannot understand you.Sorry man, it was I who didn't understand you. I thought you meant "embed a vectorscope into a jpg".
I understand what you mean and yes, it would be a really great idea.