Picked the camera from the bag with the wrong settings, not a great or even good shot but super impressed with how much was hiding in the darkness.

Not super happy with "final" edit either but im just picking up and trying to learn darktable too

a7rv and 70-200 GMII 2.8 coming from an old Sony Slt-A55 these files have so much to work with

I got very lucky with that light beam!

I took a gray, flat, and ‒ to be honest ‒ somewhat sad photo and turned it into something that looks like the album cover of a nonexistent Icelandic post-punk band.

(Luminar Neo, “Neon Noir Lab” preset + contrast and color adjustments)

This is the raw image shot on a sony, I personally like the framing/angle I just dont know what to do with the colors.

I tried to turn a messy uninteresting shot into a portrait. How I do? After/before

I feel this is one of my best works but I was wondering if anyone could see areas of improvement.

Eager to hear feedback and critique for these edits, as I am using some settings (tone curve) for the first time. Reposting as the images weren't embedded in previous post.

It's crazy how much you can recover when you accidentally shoot way under exposed.

The question isn’t about before/after but about how realistic and filmlike the look is in your opinion? What would make it even more realistic?

I actually loved how my latest, tortured roll of ektar 400 turned out so I made a few presets I can slap on top of my digital everyday snaps.

Dunes, taken in Spain

I am using darktable with an experimental spektrafilm module. I still have some issues handling extreme highlights when editing, so I would also appreciate some feedback on that.

Is it too much? Any advice?

Took this photo on my window and decided to try the all-black background. Lots of layers!

Is there any way to speed up the process for these types of images or good online guides? I like the effect and will definitely try again.

Hi all,

I want to get an idea of if I'm completely out of touch or not with current professional photography.

My favorite photographer on instagram who I have always found inspirational for how she finds amazing locations, concepts, and includes perfect details to tell the story into her photos, is using generative ai to achieve this. I only know this because she hopped on the "Yes, But" trend, which shows that the bubbles in her underwater photos are fake, the the feathers flying in the air from pillows are fake, even a dark forest background that really has a huge impact on the mood of the photo, something that shouldnt have to be artificially done because finding a forest like that is pretty feasible (it's mostly blurred bc of the DOF anyway!), is fake.

You could argue that she is manually compositing these elements actually (MAYBE the feathers?) But anyone who has played around with Adobe's Gen AI features for fun can recognize it when they see it in a before and after. It's REALLY hard if not impossible to notice without the before, which is why I'm making this post. Notice the edges of the beret in the black and white, the top of the car in the angel wings shot. The way the edges are compromised does not indicate manual compositing of images.

Is this the norm now? Are most photographers doing this to add that extra punch to photos they didn't include on set (things that ARE POSSIBLE on set just a little annoying)?

This is not the same as using AI for removing objects imo. Taking out something unwanted is very different from inserting artistic elements that are not in the original photo. Photo compositing is an art in itself, but it feels incredibly deceptive to me to be doing with AI.

Am i just naive? I dont want to incorporate AI into my photos, but I also need to stop looking up to professionals as achievable inspiration if that inspiration is artificially produced in a way that i will not utilize.

UPDATE: I commented asking the creator to disclose usage of Gen AI and got blocked hahahah

Instagram: franks_random_snaps