this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2024
492 points (96.4% liked)
Funny
6778 readers
829 users here now
General rules:
- Be kind.
- All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
- Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
- No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
- Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
RAW files don't look like what your eyes saw. RAW files more often than not look meh at best compared to the actual memory of what happened.
A part of photographer's job is to match how the photo looks like to how you remember the thing looking
Hmm ๐ค that's fair but I think more often than not it's not what the photographer remembered of that moment but down to common practices with color curves and histograms in Lightroom or something.
I like your idea but I think it's more of a post-render is more like what you remember.
However you can't use your own editing skills to get the picture to how YOU remember it or want it when it's already in someone else's version.
Which fine. Like you never got to SEE yourself and that's why you hired the photographer.
My issue is that I would be happier hiring someone if I didn't have to use their awful makeup filter mode photos that don't even look like we're real people.
if your hired photographer doesn't respect your "I'd like the bare minimum post processing please, just do a basic grade to make it look pleasing to the eye and leave it at that" then never hire them again.
I'll go apeshit on my own personal photos but when it comes to working for somebody I'll always try to use my skills to make their vision real, when I work for someone it's not about me