Vegas is the most synthetic feeling place I’ve ever been to.
this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2023
147 points (92.0% liked)
pics
19612 readers
96 users here now
Rules:
1.. Please mark original photos with [OC] in the title if you're the photographer
2..Pictures containing a politician from any country or planet are prohibited, this is a community voted on rule.
3.. Image must be a photograph, no AI or digital art.
4.. No NSFW/Cosplay/Spam/Trolling images.
5.. Be civil. No racism or bigotry.
Photo of the Week Rule(s):
1.. On Fridays, the most upvoted original, marked [OC], photo posted between Friday and Thursday will be the next week's banner and featured photo.
2.. The weekly photos will be saved for an end of the year run off.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://mastodon.world/about
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Seriously! It's so FAKE reminds me of Disney but way bigger and dirtier 😂
At least Disney has some suspension of disbelief. You only get that in Vegas if you see a hooker blowing someone directly on the strip.
Ahh I'm not sure I get any suspension of belief at Disney either man lol.
That giant eyeball thing in Vegas was pretty fucking cool.
Its incarnation as New Vegas in fallout genuinely seems like a nicer place to be, half owing purely to the fact that it's not filled with cars.
Was this image exposed to radiation 😂
More exposed to a very very amateur Lightroom user lol
I got excited about it being a film photo but it's just a filter. Nice composition though!
Ah sorry, no deception intended lol just still getting used to lightroom for the time being.
How can you tell it's a filter vs actual film?
I think it may be the level of "film grain", as well as a bit of glow around the buildings in the sky, both are a bit too high admittedly, I honestly just liked the look of the shot with the added grain and I've just started getting into photo editing so I'm still not too great at it. I probably should've put some sort of disclaimer in the description that it was edited rather than an actual film photo. I do have some old 35mm point and shoots and even an early 80s ricoh SLR I just got, but haven't gotten to use them quite just yet, my first film roll is supposed to come in in a few days so I should hopefully have some actual scanned film photos coming in a couple months or so.
When I started using Lightroom, I was the same. Lots of things looked so cool to me, largely due to the novelty, and I cranked up a lot of settings much higher than they needed to be. Eventually, that novelty of fake grain and various filters wears off, and you start feeling like your pictures don't need "so much of this" or deciding that just cause something looks cool doesn't mean you think it looks good after all. After just a few months, I was already looking back on previous edits and thinking, "Yikes." It's just part of the journey.
I think you nailed it. I'm not trying to rain on your parade. I made the comment because I've just started getting into photography with a film camera myself. Really, I was looking to nerd out with someone lol
I'm trying out Fujifilm 400 and Kodak Ultramax 400 as I get started. What film are you starting off with?
Oh no you're totally fine! At the moment since I'm new to film photography I'm just starting off with some kodak gold 200 since it's fairly cheap by film standards, I'll likely just use that until I feel more comfortable shooting film then once I'm confident enough with the medium move up to some nicer fujifilm, maybe superia 400.
The grain in the sky is too much. If you zoom in, you can see yellow grain like flicks of glitter. Real film doesn't do that unless there's something atypical.
Here's a close crop of sky from one of my shots with Fujifilm 400.
You can see the grain but it's much softer and not as contrasty. I'm using super technical terms because I only just started shooting film.
Is the walking dude there yet?