/p/ - Photography

Here's a funky cloud.

>>456

Well you can't focus on composition secondary because all elements stem from composition. What I mean about color is that I am drawn to colors and how they interact with light. It's my main focus of subject, in a sense.

No, I've never done street photography. I live in the country, far from cities, so I've rarely had a chance. I'm really what I am because my area is a bit boring. It's just slightly rolling hills, forest, and flat, clear farmsteads. I have to look for colors and light and neat composition because I've not any interesting interactions or events to supplement my skill at composing an image. In a way, it was a great learning experience, but now that I'm more skilled it's a bit of a drag. I'm visiting a pretty local college town soon for my birthday and I'll shoot about there.

What about you?

>>458

I don't shoot RAW and I rarely edit any photos, so no Photoshop. I subscribe to the idea that I should make the world appear even more beautiful than it actually is, so I use camera settings to get the desired effect I want beyond just natural colors, but in my experience and opinion, I find that the world rarely ever needs any kind of editing or adjustments of colors if you know where and when to shoot, and how. I adjust my profile for the time and conditions I want, usually for some kind of imagined image I have in my head or a specific kind of photograph I want to make. After that, I edit images only if I want eyes drawn to something specific that is very hard to do with just the camera or composition. Nature doesn't need Photoshop.

I don't shoot RAW because I've never found a moment when I needed it. Generally, if you actually need RAW you've probably made a mistake with your image, and the other times you would need it are for weirder things that I don't do. I just want to make pictures I'm proud of, and I rarely do much more than edit out birds, soft focusing areas, and slightly change colors/B&W'ing. With RAW, you must spend loads of time editing every single image, and that's no fun, neither is holding gigs of uncompressed images. Back when I was new to it, I spent so long editing images and examining the little details that I was just not having fun. It didn't take long for me to stop with that once I realized that there was no reason for me to shoot in RAW. I pretty much don't shoot in it now. If I ever do, it will be for something like family events where I want my pictures perfect, but out in nature and the real world, you really don't want it perfect. Trying to perfect nature will just leave you tired and worn out from it.

As for artists, I've only read some of Ansel Adam's work. I've yet to finish reading his trilogy on photography. I look around photography websites every once in a while, and I sometimes critically examine images I like.

I do it for fun, you know. It's just a thing I do in my travels, and I love it.

I like highly saturated looks with light leaks and prominent color shifts. I'm new to film photography and don't have a scanner yet, but I shot a roll of Ektar 100 not too long ago and it gave a really nice look. It beats screwing around in GIMP or Photoshop trying to emulate that style with digital.

Color is so important to me that I never bother shooting color on cloudy days, and even black and white benefits from sunny lighting.

Pic related is a pretty decent example of the sort of look I go for, albeit with some objections (like more subdued greens than I'd like).

>>463

I do as well, but I don't like low fidelity lomo-tier stuff like light leaks and shite lenses. High fidelity but messed up processing, perhaps.

In any case, my favorite color tone has to be early Kodachrome, like pic related.

Yeah, it's kinda cliche, but I've yet to see a film or digital image that looks as good as Kodachrome when it comes to people.

If not that, then some muted greens, popping reds, and some kind of extreme contrast either low or high works for me.

For landscape, I prefer high contrast, slight red color shift, over saturated blues and normal greens. I love the way that manipulates light and makes every little ray pop out.

>>464

>I do as well, but I don't like low fidelity lomo-tier stuff like light leaks and shite lenses. High fidelity but messed up processing, perhaps.

For me it just comes down to a love of the damaged, enigmatic feeling of lo-fi photographs and the almost intrinsically nostalgic vibes they tend to evoke.

I actually ended up going down this way after seeing an article on how to make fake "chillwave" album covers and later realizing that the look they were aiming for was just an imitation of the lo-fi film look.

>In any case, my favorite color tone has to be early Kodachrome, like pic related.

I really wish I could have played around with Kodachrome when it was still possible to develop it. A lot of the Kodachrome pictures I see have an almost surreal feeling to them, though it might just be that I usually look at stuff taken back when black and white photography was the norm.

>>467

>The authentic stuff is sooo much better than the photoshop and instagram filters.

Yeah, If I had to go back to digital, I'd still edit the crap out of them, but this seems like the smarter choice even if it is far less convenient.

>Do you have any of your stuff you'd be willing to upload or others in that similar style?

I'll just keep posting ones I find on Flickr. I've found a lot of pleasing ones by looking for Holga pictures and selecting green and cyan for the color scheme. That's actually where my second picture came from.

Since I don't have a scanner yet, all I could post would be some of my digital ones where I used gradients and playing with the color and contrast. Those ones really aren't that great.

>>468

Unfortunately, they discontinued the chemicals so it's pretty much impossible to even process nowadays.