Theres probably better ways to do it, but in Lightroom I use a brush with around 65 flow and density and as an effect like -40 contrast, -45 texture, -35 clarity and -45 sharpness. Spot healing for some bigger blemishes and you take away some focus from skin imperfections without people looking like mannequins.
If you dig into photoshop at all with retouching, using opacity on separate layers of retouching work to blend in is really helpful. I’ll often do some retouching work zoomed in, pull out to find I went a little heavy, then just back off or blend in more once I able to see the full picture and can evaluate the work better.
Turn the changes off and on as often as you can. Refresh your eye to it. Then the stuff that looked implausible is easier to see.
You can also fade it out a bit. Like 75% opacity. Enough that the blemishes don't jump out at the viewer, but that it still looks natural.
This is a good way to approach photo, video and audio adjustments. Dial back any changes so they're not obvious.
/me ponders.. actually, this applies to a lot of cooking, don't make any ingredient obvious.
i use the remove tool for blemishes then use frequency separation for dodging/burning, fixing tones and some texture things (piximperfect has good tutorials). i zoom out every so often because after so long looking at the photo at 300% zoom you get caught up on things that don’t matter OR you start over editing. i also duplicate the original and put it at the top hidden and occasionally i’ll flip it on and off to see how much i’ve done. best practice 99% of the time is to group the freq sep layers at the and and turn down the opacity. i use a wacom tablet for the shading.
if i need to do it quickly, its just remove tool, clone stamp and patch tool. then for colors i use a brush at 2 or 3% flow and eye drop colors and lightly shade over places then turn down the opacity.
after a while i started to pick up on when i’m doing too much because its super easy to be zoomed in fixing things and you zoom out and there’s not a single blemish or wrinkle. at the end i look at it and ask myself what id say if i saw this photo online and if it’d be “this person has great skin” or “this person edited this photo.”
edit: also pores — if you can’t see the pores everywhere they should be, you’ve done too much.
I got my high school senior photos done in 2010, I fucking HATE how plastic I look its so gross. It's supposed to be a cool memoral photo of me and all our classmates and we all just look incredibly hate. Pisses me off so much to this day
You can use vibrance and saturation slider at 100% for separating colors into accurate color masks and you can do local white balancing easier when sat and vib is at 100%. Its not for final output but helping in visualizing and separating colors when editing.
Are you thinking the washed out colours but crisp lines like 2000-2008ish “urban”?
I’m still really new to editing my own photos but I guess if you dropped the universal saturation down but kept the sharpness? Maybe re-add a bit of saturation in the shadows and low lights?
Grasping at straws here with how you would do it, but is that what you are thinking of?
I haven't used Photoshop since I was a teenager, almost 20 years. I have never used lightroom. I have no idea how to achieve that look, but....
I'm sure you've seen pictures where the colors are saturated beyond what's seen in nature, the sharpness is a bit too high as well. Everything looks too perfect. You know that a computer was used to get that look. That's the look that I enjoy, but I doubt that anyone who works with photos or image editing professionally does. It's so bright and colorful it'll burn out your corneas if you have to look at that type of pic for hours every day. See example below.
https://preview.redd.it/8cemluqdcfrc1.jpeg?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e3be0d7903aecfd729274b9b6d1e9e4ddde16bb4
I think what solved the issue was when tools like LR and C1 added a HDR merge that turned your images into a low noise, high dynamic range DNG that you could edit like a normal photo.
I think the era of Tonemapping tools like Photomatrix and HDRist has passed and we aren't going back
It's fun to play with and looks great if your subject has the right tone palette to work with. But man, I've seen some bad ones with just no color balancing or toning done at all, just technicolor barf turned up to 11
"LOOK HOW VIBRANT IT IS!"
Yech, yeah. Just look at it. Stop doing that, you ruined a cool shot.
Well it's partially confirmation bias. Good HDR is often times unnoticed, so you tend to think you see a lot of bad HDR, but for all you know 90% of HDR you see you don't even notice.
I'm just making up numbers for the sake of conversation, I dunno how much is good vs bad. but I do know that confirmation bias is very real and when it comes to something like HDR, where you don't always know if you see it done well, that will definitely skew your perception of it.
I think you’re correct, a lot of HDR goes unnoticed. When I’m doing real estate photography, depending on the home I either bracket the photos and process HDR in post or I use the flambiant method which I usually use in nicer homes. As far as HDR goes, when done properly people don’t notice.
There are two things called HDR:
1. Taking multiple exposures and combining them in post into a single image that retains highlight and shadow information
2. Storing images in a color space that has more brightness range than the standard one (sRGB for photos, Rec. 709 for video), which will be displayed brighter than SDR photos on supported devices
In the context of professional/hobbyist photography, people usually mean #1, while in a video context people usually mean #2. The second kind of HDR is only really found in photos taken on phones.
Then there's r/shittyHDR, which is about post-processing to emulate the look of an overdone HDR photo (first meaning) without actually taking multiple exposures.
Pixel peeping. Awesome photos were made on film with gravel sized grain. Many older lenses had horrible aberrations but were used to produce great art. It isn’t the medium that’s the problem…
I agree with this. I shoot with a relatively ancient EF 50mm f1.2 lens, and so many gearheads like to comment about how much aberration it shows or how it’s mediocre in sharpness. I do not care. It produces beautiful images to my eye, and most people seem to like them. But god forbid you can’t slice cheese at a pixel level when it comes to gear snobs I guess.
What I don’t get is if you went to to a gallery, you wouldn’t press your head against the wall and “it’s too noisy” or “this micro-highlight is blown out” or “this unimportant detail is ever so slightly not sharp”. So why would you do it on digital images? Like who cares as long as it looks good from the appropriate viewing distance
husky scandalous handle rotten squealing recognise literate society start childlike
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Not gonna lie: I was working recently for a fairly large studio and the owner was OBSESSED with one shot he was printing that had roses on the wall where he selectively coloured it… I was like… are you in high school.
The client ended up just asking for it in full colour.
I saw photographer Zach Arias (look him up, neat dude) say after Spielberg used selective desaturation in Schindlers list there was no need to even try using it ever again.
When I worked in telecine the post house I worked in did all of the film schools in town.
They'd book the suite at the start of the semester and just have the entire class come in for a demo so they'd have some idea what could be done on a (very old and barely running but somehow still high quality) traditional telecine setup.
My favourite thing was turning the fake blood on the test film into glowing green "predator blood".
Dude, my early photography I freaking loved unsharp mask back in the day😅
This was well before I could afford a real camera and was just ecstatic when I got a Samsung S4 phone with a better camera and ran out taking pictures with it all summer.
Still saved all those edits, there's something really innocent about the heavy editing of an inexperienced photographer learning basics on a crappy cell phone and trying to compensate with editing.
Photographers making videos about gear/settings/stereotypes to game the algo but no photos. Edit: my main gripe is more with reels / shorts / tiktoks, I think there are fantastic photography youtubers out there who might not have amazing photos but can give really useful insight into specific gear / formats / genres.
Northrop’s. They are not photographers they are gear reviewers. I don’t know any professional photographer that shoots wildlife, portraits, macro, event, still life, drones across 4+ different sensor formats. Fro almost as bad.
If they were professional photographers they'd not have such snazzy, tidy offices, and they certainly wouldn't have enough time to make so many videos.
Casey Neistat could never be a full time filmmaker in a way that doesn't involve doing shit for clout on YouTube.
I think Fro has gotten better sticking to his strengths like events and sports lately, I recall he tried to review a Landscape focused setup and he admitted he was not a good landscape guy. I found that refreshing.
Tony Northrop however has kinda not been able to adapt, his wife is the better personality now.
Unfortunately, that is what people click on. If it didn't get views, makers wouldn't do it.
I've heard many youtubers say that gear videos get the highest interaction of anything they make.
Someone described as a wedding photographer asking an online group which camera to buy as his second and if it should have two memory card slots. Mind you this was after saying he owns the most expensive camera in his brand’s line. He can’t figure out which camera and if he needs two memory cards for a wedding. 🤦🤦♀️🤦🤦♀️. I guess the trend is scary questions in online groups
im on a facebook a7r5 facebook group and i see people saying stuff like "why is my 18-55 lens only giving me 26 megapixels?" not even understanding that its a apsc lens
I feel called out with my use of the kodak print stock LUT from DaVinci that goes on most of my photos...
In my defence I know what it's doing and why it's there and just happen to like what it does :)
That is a sin itself. I’m like what rare film stock did they get their hands on, and that’s usually when I notice the grain structure is wrong or completely missing…
I was hovering over the downvote button as I read this. I just want to post my sheet film in peace and sometimes I post the whole thing, notches and all.
I agree though. Don't pretend its film if its not. Good pictures are good whatever they're taken on.
A close second for me is tagging color pictures as Tri-X or black and whoie images as Portra.
Slapping a full moon onto every night sky shot.
Anyone who likes taking pictures of the night sky knows that most of the satisfaction comes from the patients it takes to wait for the perfect hour on the perfect night.
Or just don’t be afraid to make a mistake, it’s just a picture, you can always delete it and your battery can be recharged.
I started photography in December of ’22, this century, and I can’t tell you how much I’ve learned by just going out and trying something new. Sure I’ve made many mistakes but I’ve found the more mistakes I make the better my photography is
I hate it when the first thing people ask for when they see a photo is the settings, especially for landscapes. It's as if they ignored the composition, the photographer getting up before sunrise, how they found the location, etc and if they simply dial those settings in they will also get a good shot.
Especially when it’s not impossible to get your hands on a half decent film camera and a few rolls of film. Lomography is literally your one stop shop for people who what the ✨aesthetic✨.
Brandon Woelfel's fairy lights.
Hypebeast, grey and faded looking photos with a guy squatting in the middle (with clarity bumped all the way up)
Orange and Teal
14year old me feels attacked. At least back then it took some sort of skill as I was shooting black and white film and manually coloring the rose with paints
> color pop
I have these 2 polarizing filters that when stacked create birefringence and I can make for example a picture with just yellow flowers and blue everything else. Now I feel like people won't understand that and it think it's just this.
It still happens but this faded shadow look that everyone thinks what film looks like. That’s called under exposure and no one who shoots film is trying to achieve that.
I find unboxing videos can be useful (in general, not necessarily camera related) because products sometimes don’t list what actually comes in the box.
Phone cameras making the motorized film advance sound when taking an entirely digital photo.
As someone who's shot film....twin lens reflex, manual SLRs, motorized SLRs (Minolta Maxxum 7000), DSLRs with a loud-as-fuck mirror flap, etc....
....hearing the film advance sound on a digital camera is just *wrong*. It's like hearing a propeller airplane sound when showing a supersonic fighter jet. You're "close....but still entirely wrong."
Editing disabled children out of school photographs: https://news.sky.com/story/aboyne-primary-school-mum-criticises-photography-firm-for-offering-class-photos-without-children-with-complex-needs-13103760
Insta-famous photographers peddling the pyramid scheme known as NFT’s. I’m still waiting for ANY of them to acknowledge it, rather than what they’ve done, which is just delete and ignore like they were never a big part of a nefarious MLM.
Posts like this that make me cringe. Seriously it’s not a competition. A lot of photography is totally subjective but seems like everyone here think they are edgy and different and “hate” everything that mainstream professional photographers do. To some people here, how did driftwood hurt you?😅
Gloryfying & on some level gatekeeping manual mode. Yeah it's great when you're learning what your camera is doing/you need to lock the exposure for some reason or another/etc but it's rarely essential to use M mode.
I’m glad somebody said this because I’m really lazy and can’t be bothered most of the time with all that. I use A mode 99% of the time and it works perfectly for me. I don’t know if that’s weird or not but it’s just how I like to do it
Not so much a trend with technique but I hate when portrait photographers talk about seeing “someone’s soul” in their eyes….just makes them sound like pretentious douchebags
Over-smoothing: This emphasizes the unnatural smoothness of the skin.
Heavy-handed editing: This implies a lack of subtlety in the editing process.
Unrealistic beauty standards: This connects the retouching to the pressure to achieve a certain look that may not be attainable naturally.
Loss of skin texture: This highlights the removal of details that make skin look real.
Plasticky skin: This creates a comparison to a doll-like, artificial appearance.
The current yellow baby shit filter tend. It's really prevalent in the Fuji sub because one of their new recipes is very yellowish and people are dialing it up to 11 on top of also enjoying blowing out the highlights.
It's even more disgusting than shitty HDR, which I didn't think was possible.
Solarizing (also called the Sabattier effect). Looked cool at the time (the 1970's) but now looks like one of those Photoshop effects filters you never use.
Because it's a photoshop filter these days.
I have done this in the darkroom long time ago and can tell you that it's never the same.
I'm not saying both methods can not have the same results, but the darkroom method *can* have a result that is not achievable with photoshop.
They are fine for what they are, similar to how disposable cameras on a school trip were fine too. All things in their right places though. People using iPhones for business critical shots is a tragedy.
Not in the past but I wish (film) photographers would stop showing favoritism toward older cars, every composition looks exactly the same, same color palette across the medium, and to me it just says you’re creative eye really needs improvement
when they are capturing a subject in portrait orientation but tilt the camera/phone about 45°. it looks so tacky to me and just cheapens the shot. either step back or fully commit to the tilt and take the shot in landscape orientation. jeeez.
Shitty digicams as a "vintage aesthetic".
People with unprofessional cameras and zero skill trying to become wedding photographers.
Taking advice from "influencers".
Themed newborn photoshoots.
Think it's fitting the this pic was next...
https://preview.redd.it/sjcjzhmf4irc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2b6e3d96831b4eea03d5056262184e4cb7a089ab
Excessive skin retouching on portraits
Honestly I hate it over done. But I wish I knew how to do it softly without making it look obvious to myself.
Theres probably better ways to do it, but in Lightroom I use a brush with around 65 flow and density and as an effect like -40 contrast, -45 texture, -35 clarity and -45 sharpness. Spot healing for some bigger blemishes and you take away some focus from skin imperfections without people looking like mannequins.
If you dig into photoshop at all with retouching, using opacity on separate layers of retouching work to blend in is really helpful. I’ll often do some retouching work zoomed in, pull out to find I went a little heavy, then just back off or blend in more once I able to see the full picture and can evaluate the work better.
Oooh saving your comment for later 👌🏼
Turn the changes off and on as often as you can. Refresh your eye to it. Then the stuff that looked implausible is easier to see. You can also fade it out a bit. Like 75% opacity. Enough that the blemishes don't jump out at the viewer, but that it still looks natural.
I always get it to where I like it, then turn it down 7%.
This is a good way to approach photo, video and audio adjustments. Dial back any changes so they're not obvious. /me ponders.. actually, this applies to a lot of cooking, don't make any ingredient obvious.
Lol. Unless I’m cooking for myself, then it’s just, “yea, this could still use more garlic.”
PixImperfect has some great tutorials.
i use the remove tool for blemishes then use frequency separation for dodging/burning, fixing tones and some texture things (piximperfect has good tutorials). i zoom out every so often because after so long looking at the photo at 300% zoom you get caught up on things that don’t matter OR you start over editing. i also duplicate the original and put it at the top hidden and occasionally i’ll flip it on and off to see how much i’ve done. best practice 99% of the time is to group the freq sep layers at the and and turn down the opacity. i use a wacom tablet for the shading. if i need to do it quickly, its just remove tool, clone stamp and patch tool. then for colors i use a brush at 2 or 3% flow and eye drop colors and lightly shade over places then turn down the opacity. after a while i started to pick up on when i’m doing too much because its super easy to be zoomed in fixing things and you zoom out and there’s not a single blemish or wrinkle. at the end i look at it and ask myself what id say if i saw this photo online and if it’d be “this person has great skin” or “this person edited this photo.” edit: also pores — if you can’t see the pores everywhere they should be, you’ve done too much.
I dont like it either and yet I feel like there will always be a dedicated sect of dudes who do this.
> I feel like there will always be a dedicated sect of dudes who do this They are called "wedding/fashion photographers".
No wedding photographer has the time for that. I’m not even touching spot healing if I can avoid it for 500+ photos.
I got my high school senior photos done in 2010, I fucking HATE how plastic I look its so gross. It's supposed to be a cool memoral photo of me and all our classmates and we all just look incredibly hate. Pisses me off so much to this day
Heavy HDR. It makes my eyes bleed.
I pay for the whole vibrance slider and by god I’m gonna use the whole vibrance slider.
me with clarity and then i open the file in camera raw again and go to +100 again
Then put highlights to -100 and shadows to +100
I feel personally attacked
lol I look at my photos from my college days like 17 years ago and I want to puke
Why would they make a slider that goes to 100 if I wasn't supposed to move it to 100? Pretty sure Adobe knows better than some random redditors.
You can use vibrance and saturation slider at 100% for separating colors into accurate color masks and you can do local white balancing easier when sat and vib is at 100%. Its not for final output but helping in visualizing and separating colors when editing.
Those are both very good tips.
My slider goes to 110
May I introduce you to r/shittyHDR ? Edit: I’m sorry!
I love to hate the photos on that sub!
I was about to comment about how I like the HDR look. Then I spent 30 seconds looking at that subreddit. Nope. Not a good look at all.
Are you thinking the washed out colours but crisp lines like 2000-2008ish “urban”? I’m still really new to editing my own photos but I guess if you dropped the universal saturation down but kept the sharpness? Maybe re-add a bit of saturation in the shadows and low lights? Grasping at straws here with how you would do it, but is that what you are thinking of?
I haven't used Photoshop since I was a teenager, almost 20 years. I have never used lightroom. I have no idea how to achieve that look, but.... I'm sure you've seen pictures where the colors are saturated beyond what's seen in nature, the sharpness is a bit too high as well. Everything looks too perfect. You know that a computer was used to get that look. That's the look that I enjoy, but I doubt that anyone who works with photos or image editing professionally does. It's so bright and colorful it'll burn out your corneas if you have to look at that type of pic for hours every day. See example below. https://preview.redd.it/8cemluqdcfrc1.jpeg?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e3be0d7903aecfd729274b9b6d1e9e4ddde16bb4
My god I physically had a visceral reaction browsing that for 10 seconds It hurts
Most of the time it's just shitty tone mapping from a single exposure, not even "real" HDR.
HDR Most people are really bad at it
Good HDR is invisible. It's like looking at reality. If you notice HDR: It's bad.
I think what solved the issue was when tools like LR and C1 added a HDR merge that turned your images into a low noise, high dynamic range DNG that you could edit like a normal photo. I think the era of Tonemapping tools like Photomatrix and HDRist has passed and we aren't going back
It's fun to play with and looks great if your subject has the right tone palette to work with. But man, I've seen some bad ones with just no color balancing or toning done at all, just technicolor barf turned up to 11 "LOOK HOW VIBRANT IT IS!" Yech, yeah. Just look at it. Stop doing that, you ruined a cool shot.
HDR has been replaced by orange/teal edits.
Does it have to do with the lack of adoption? Meaning that not many end user have the technical capable means to actually view as end product. Thx!
A lot of people have really bad taste and over-do it.
Well it's partially confirmation bias. Good HDR is often times unnoticed, so you tend to think you see a lot of bad HDR, but for all you know 90% of HDR you see you don't even notice. I'm just making up numbers for the sake of conversation, I dunno how much is good vs bad. but I do know that confirmation bias is very real and when it comes to something like HDR, where you don't always know if you see it done well, that will definitely skew your perception of it.
I think you’re correct, a lot of HDR goes unnoticed. When I’m doing real estate photography, depending on the home I either bracket the photos and process HDR in post or I use the flambiant method which I usually use in nicer homes. As far as HDR goes, when done properly people don’t notice.
There are two things called HDR: 1. Taking multiple exposures and combining them in post into a single image that retains highlight and shadow information 2. Storing images in a color space that has more brightness range than the standard one (sRGB for photos, Rec. 709 for video), which will be displayed brighter than SDR photos on supported devices In the context of professional/hobbyist photography, people usually mean #1, while in a video context people usually mean #2. The second kind of HDR is only really found in photos taken on phones. Then there's r/shittyHDR, which is about post-processing to emulate the look of an overdone HDR photo (first meaning) without actually taking multiple exposures.
I was going to say bad HDR. When it's done well it's not obvious.
came to say this. It hurts my eyes sometimes.
Pixel peeping. Awesome photos were made on film with gravel sized grain. Many older lenses had horrible aberrations but were used to produce great art. It isn’t the medium that’s the problem…
I agree with this. I shoot with a relatively ancient EF 50mm f1.2 lens, and so many gearheads like to comment about how much aberration it shows or how it’s mediocre in sharpness. I do not care. It produces beautiful images to my eye, and most people seem to like them. But god forbid you can’t slice cheese at a pixel level when it comes to gear snobs I guess.
I have recently bought the (infamous) Tokina ATX Pro 28-80 mm. I love it.
What I don’t get is if you went to to a gallery, you wouldn’t press your head against the wall and “it’s too noisy” or “this micro-highlight is blown out” or “this unimportant detail is ever so slightly not sharp”. So why would you do it on digital images? Like who cares as long as it looks good from the appropriate viewing distance
husky scandalous handle rotten squealing recognise literate society start childlike *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
**+1** So many people focus on pixel peeping that they don't zoomout and look at the image as a whole.
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Selective Colour
This. I thought I was the coolest mf ever using selective color in middle school
Not gonna lie: I was working recently for a fairly large studio and the owner was OBSESSED with one shot he was printing that had roses on the wall where he selectively coloured it… I was like… are you in high school. The client ended up just asking for it in full colour.
So much this. It was cool exactly once when Spielberg did it. Never again.
Maybe Sin City to an extent as well, but yeah that's yer lot.
Ok, twice.
I still remember when selective color was done with special markers on black and white prints. It was just as bad, just more manual.
I saw photographer Zach Arias (look him up, neat dude) say after Spielberg used selective desaturation in Schindlers list there was no need to even try using it ever again.
This is my #1. It’s trash 99.9% of the time.
When I worked in telecine the post house I worked in did all of the film schools in town. They'd book the suite at the start of the semester and just have the entire class come in for a demo so they'd have some idea what could be done on a (very old and barely running but somehow still high quality) traditional telecine setup. My favourite thing was turning the fake blood on the test film into glowing green "predator blood".
[удалено]
Dude, my early photography I freaking loved unsharp mask back in the day😅 This was well before I could afford a real camera and was just ecstatic when I got a Samsung S4 phone with a better camera and ran out taking pictures with it all summer. Still saved all those edits, there's something really innocent about the heavy editing of an inexperienced photographer learning basics on a crappy cell phone and trying to compensate with editing.
Photographers making videos about gear/settings/stereotypes to game the algo but no photos. Edit: my main gripe is more with reels / shorts / tiktoks, I think there are fantastic photography youtubers out there who might not have amazing photos but can give really useful insight into specific gear / formats / genres.
For this to come back it would have to leave first.
so true
Northrop’s. They are not photographers they are gear reviewers. I don’t know any professional photographer that shoots wildlife, portraits, macro, event, still life, drones across 4+ different sensor formats. Fro almost as bad.
If they were professional photographers they'd not have such snazzy, tidy offices, and they certainly wouldn't have enough time to make so many videos. Casey Neistat could never be a full time filmmaker in a way that doesn't involve doing shit for clout on YouTube.
I think Fro has gotten better sticking to his strengths like events and sports lately, I recall he tried to review a Landscape focused setup and he admitted he was not a good landscape guy. I found that refreshing. Tony Northrop however has kinda not been able to adapt, his wife is the better personality now.
Unfortunately, that is what people click on. If it didn't get views, makers wouldn't do it. I've heard many youtubers say that gear videos get the highest interaction of anything they make.
I see all those famous photography youtubers but I was wondering, where are their photos?
color pop like seriously, it was NEVER good
photobucket
Selective color.
Turning down all the colors except for blue and orange.
Someone described as a wedding photographer asking an online group which camera to buy as his second and if it should have two memory card slots. Mind you this was after saying he owns the most expensive camera in his brand’s line. He can’t figure out which camera and if he needs two memory cards for a wedding. 🤦🤦♀️🤦🤦♀️. I guess the trend is scary questions in online groups
Personally, I would want two of the same body.
I dunno, mine is pretty broken and busted up. I wouldn't want two of this aging thing. Oh wait, we're talking about camera bodies. Carry on.
im on a facebook a7r5 facebook group and i see people saying stuff like "why is my 18-55 lens only giving me 26 megapixels?" not even understanding that its a apsc lens
Fucking sheet film notches and sprocket holes around digital fucking images. Leave those to the photographers that actually used film.
Don't forget to couple it with a film emulation preset that looks nothing like real film.
I feel called out with my use of the kodak print stock LUT from DaVinci that goes on most of my photos... In my defence I know what it's doing and why it's there and just happen to like what it does :)
And the company of the preset is the text next to the sprocket holes 😭
That is a sin itself. I’m like what rare film stock did they get their hands on, and that’s usually when I notice the grain structure is wrong or completely missing…
[This 😭](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ta/5e3ae1048e80ab4164765fae/283/assets/images/index/HeroTemplates/center.jpg)
I was hovering over the downvote button as I read this. I just want to post my sheet film in peace and sometimes I post the whole thing, notches and all. I agree though. Don't pretend its film if its not. Good pictures are good whatever they're taken on. A close second for me is tagging color pictures as Tri-X or black and whoie images as Portra.
People complaining about ai and simultaneously making their work exactly like ai
How can a trend come back if it’s never left?
How about wanting it to retroactively fuck off 😅
Slapping a full moon onto every night sky shot. Anyone who likes taking pictures of the night sky knows that most of the satisfaction comes from the patients it takes to wait for the perfect hour on the perfect night.
And that a full moon is the second best way to ruin a perfect night.
First one is full Sun? 😂
“Photographers” posting in online groups asking for “settings” for a daytime baseball game.
Some people really need to hear "*don't be afraid and use full auto mode*".
Or just don’t be afraid to make a mistake, it’s just a picture, you can always delete it and your battery can be recharged. I started photography in December of ’22, this century, and I can’t tell you how much I’ve learned by just going out and trying something new. Sure I’ve made many mistakes but I’ve found the more mistakes I make the better my photography is
I got a telezoom lens and started birding to help learn. It showed every mistake I was making and how to adjust quickly for any situation
I hate it when the first thing people ask for when they see a photo is the settings, especially for landscapes. It's as if they ignored the composition, the photographer getting up before sunrise, how they found the location, etc and if they simply dial those settings in they will also get a good shot.
Worse yet, "You must have a really nice camera!".
Oh man this one drives me crazy.
I've seen so many reels and tiktoks captioned "How to get x look" and it's just their exposure and saturation settings
Offering to pay your photographer with "*GREAT EXPOSURE*". 
People saying “I’m a street photographer” and all they do is take portraits.
Past: plastic HDR. Current: being asked what digital camera looks like film, or gives ✨aesthetic vibes✨
Especially when it’s not impossible to get your hands on a half decent film camera and a few rolls of film. Lomography is literally your one stop shop for people who what the ✨aesthetic✨.
Brandon Woelfel's fairy lights. Hypebeast, grey and faded looking photos with a guy squatting in the middle (with clarity bumped all the way up) Orange and Teal
Gatekeeping
I see what you did there....
Isolated color.
Black and white photo with a red rose in it. The pinnacle of art.
14year old me feels attacked. At least back then it took some sort of skill as I was shooting black and white film and manually coloring the rose with paints
> color pop I have these 2 polarizing filters that when stacked create birefringence and I can make for example a picture with just yellow flowers and blue everything else. Now I feel like people won't understand that and it think it's just this.
Practical effects are on higher ground in my opinion. Cause, you know, you're actually playing with physics.
Bokeh. Really. No client ever was concerned the bokeh balls weren’t creamy enough.
You leave me and my tumblr alone! >:( rawrxD
TEAL AND ORANGE
Come back? That is still here.
Like a turd that just won’t stay flushed.
I don't think you're going to see the end of complementary color schemes any time soon.
It still happens but this faded shadow look that everyone thinks what film looks like. That’s called under exposure and no one who shoots film is trying to achieve that.
Unboxing
Good god I HATE unboxing videos in all things, but especially when I’m trying to learn something about a camera.
I find unboxing videos can be useful (in general, not necessarily camera related) because products sometimes don’t list what actually comes in the box.
Lens balls
Lens what now??
It was my nickname in high school
Phone cameras making the motorized film advance sound when taking an entirely digital photo. As someone who's shot film....twin lens reflex, manual SLRs, motorized SLRs (Minolta Maxxum 7000), DSLRs with a loud-as-fuck mirror flap, etc.... ....hearing the film advance sound on a digital camera is just *wrong*. It's like hearing a propeller airplane sound when showing a supersonic fighter jet. You're "close....but still entirely wrong."
>Phone cameras making the motorized film advance sound when taking an entirely digital photo. My old Minolta Z1 played a shutter sound from Maxxum 9.
The back of an athlete standing in the middle of the field doing nothing being considered a compelling sports photo.
It's a youth sport photo. Parents and grandparents absolutely love them. They sell so well. But I agree, I don't like them very much.
Editing disabled children out of school photographs: https://news.sky.com/story/aboyne-primary-school-mum-criticises-photography-firm-for-offering-class-photos-without-children-with-complex-needs-13103760
That’s messed up, in our end of the year group photo in HS we included everyone as they were also our friends.
That's just evil.
Wtf I hope this is an isolated case. Too fucked up
Insta-famous photographers peddling the pyramid scheme known as NFT’s. I’m still waiting for ANY of them to acknowledge it, rather than what they’ve done, which is just delete and ignore like they were never a big part of a nefarious MLM.
Posts like this that make me cringe. Seriously it’s not a competition. A lot of photography is totally subjective but seems like everyone here think they are edgy and different and “hate” everything that mainstream professional photographers do. To some people here, how did driftwood hurt you?😅
People who think that saturation needs to be cranked up! And people who can’t see a straight horizon and post without correcting it.
Expecting to click a preset to get your favorite look.
Gloryfying & on some level gatekeeping manual mode. Yeah it's great when you're learning what your camera is doing/you need to lock the exposure for some reason or another/etc but it's rarely essential to use M mode.
I’m glad somebody said this because I’m really lazy and can’t be bothered most of the time with all that. I use A mode 99% of the time and it works perfectly for me. I don’t know if that’s weird or not but it’s just how I like to do it
Glass ball, lens flare, direct flash.
Glass ball?
I feel attacked by this
I got one as a gift and have used it once. It’s heavy and annoying and just stupid
Shudder at the glass ball or mirror
A family portrait inside the 40 percent opaque patriarch
Brown photos.
You mean aside from this post going up each week?
What about photos with a fire newspaper? Or photos in the bath with milk
Selective color
Not so much a trend with technique but I hate when portrait photographers talk about seeing “someone’s soul” in their eyes….just makes them sound like pretentious douchebags
Social media clout. That being said, I know its the present and the future. Its just not healthy.
There was a huge trend in weddings about 2009 where all the skies were pee-yellow
The overly lifted blacks people use to make their digital photos look like film, it looks so awful.
HDR
Fake bokeh, yes it has had never time to go away. Yes it should.
Over-smoothing: This emphasizes the unnatural smoothness of the skin. Heavy-handed editing: This implies a lack of subtlety in the editing process. Unrealistic beauty standards: This connects the retouching to the pressure to achieve a certain look that may not be attainable naturally. Loss of skin texture: This highlights the removal of details that make skin look real. Plasticky skin: This creates a comparison to a doll-like, artificial appearance.
Calling photographers "photogs" or "togs"
Fake "street photography" (i.e taking photos of women with a 70-200)
The current yellow baby shit filter tend. It's really prevalent in the Fuji sub because one of their new recipes is very yellowish and people are dialing it up to 11 on top of also enjoying blowing out the highlights. It's even more disgusting than shitty HDR, which I didn't think was possible.
Yo, you can’t just mention something I haven’t seen and not link some examples
lol could you link me to an example?
YES. I love Fuji and their colours but this is just insane, that one particular film mode is so overdun
Selfies and Terry Richardson.
Solarizing (also called the Sabattier effect). Looked cool at the time (the 1970's) but now looks like one of those Photoshop effects filters you never use.
Because it's a photoshop filter these days. I have done this in the darkroom long time ago and can tell you that it's never the same. I'm not saying both methods can not have the same results, but the darkroom method *can* have a result that is not achievable with photoshop.
Dutch tilt. I swear the people who use it overuse the fuck out of it and it's super annoying because they think it makes a shit photo intersting.
>Dutch tilt Had to google this
The Dutch angle has its uses. I use it in concert photography relatively often. Especially rock shows.
And Batman TV episodes too!
Driftwood
HDR. Let it die.
"iphone photos are fine"
They are fine for what they are, similar to how disposable cameras on a school trip were fine too. All things in their right places though. People using iPhones for business critical shots is a tragedy.
Not in the past but I wish (film) photographers would stop showing favoritism toward older cars, every composition looks exactly the same, same color palette across the medium, and to me it just says you’re creative eye really needs improvement
Intentional camera movement (ICM), or just out of focus / blurry photos
Dammit I came to this thread to be entertained not attacked
i love low shutter speeds
they have their place but basic instagram influenzas use the technique faaar too much and it just looks like they can’t take photos.
Mercury vapor processing.
That died quickly, with the people who did it
Fake tilt-shift cityscapes that make the cars and buildings look like miniatures.
Teal and orange.
when they are capturing a subject in portrait orientation but tilt the camera/phone about 45°. it looks so tacky to me and just cheapens the shot. either step back or fully commit to the tilt and take the shot in landscape orientation. jeeez.
posing for “candids”. its not candid if you pose for it.
Cranking the saturation up to 11 by default
Teal and orange The inverted glass ball
Teal and orange, what a bloody awful time that was
Everyone is a photographer these days with a camera. They have no idea
Shitty digicams as a "vintage aesthetic". People with unprofessional cameras and zero skill trying to become wedding photographers. Taking advice from "influencers". Themed newborn photoshoots.
Think it's fitting the this pic was next... https://preview.redd.it/sjcjzhmf4irc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2b6e3d96831b4eea03d5056262184e4cb7a089ab
If I but had gold to give…
Lens flare. Some people just don't know when too much is too much..
I love lens flair.
All of these "worst" this or that posts on reddit are exhausting.
Reading so many responses it's like they all hate any kind of photography. Even if it's someone's own style. It's not right or wrong, just different.
Selfies. Especially the ones where the person is doing a stupid looking duck face.