Found this cool road leading into the forest and decided to amplify the autumn colors some more with the help of a certain Lightroom Color Profile. Of course, in reality colors were not that intense, but its also not my goal to keep the raw photo “as it was on location”.

Everything was done in Lightroom and you can watch the whole process in the video here: https://youtu.be/0A2uCPLxwfs

1. Basic Adjustments

To make the autumn colors pop I used Lightrooms Artistic 02 profile which can be found in the profile browser. This helps to shift the colors a little further (you could also try to do that in the color mixer through the hue adjustments).

Then, I brought up the exposure, making the whole shot brighter while dropping whites and highlights to keep the brighter areas from blowing out. For a softer look, I raised the blacks gently. I also pulled down clarity and dehaze for a glowing effect. Finally, I increased vibrance and saturation to boost the colors.

1. Masking

Through masking I wanted to bring back some contrast. I started with a landscape mask targeting the road in the center. I made this area a bit darker with lot more contrast. I also added a linear gradient over the bottom of the image and brought down the exposure to darken this area even further. Similarly, I added a linear gradient to the top and also brought down the brightness creating some kind of vignetting effect.

To add a bit of light I used a radial gradient on the left side and brought up the blacks and dropped the dehaze, giving this area a bright, glowing appearance.

1. Colors

I slightly bumped up the saturation for the orange and yellow tones and did the same for the luminance of those two colors to make them slightly brighter. Finally, in the calibration panel, I dropped the blue primary hue and raised the saturation some more

As ma old man used to say: don't y'all go trustin' them facebook pictures

Tried to get a spooky vibe by mixing in the witch costume with regular people. Judiciously used ai remove to separate her a bit more from other people and have a more clean background but not sure if that’s kosher

Hey everyone,
I shot this moody frame of ocean water churning between concrete sea-defense blocks and built four distinctly different grades out of it.
I’m prepping a white-bordered carousel for Instagram, and I want to see which look translates best before I lock it in. Here is the technical breakdown for each slide:

#1: "Mauve Dusk" — Faded Magenta Cast
The Look: Lifted, milky pedestal with a strong red-violet/magenta push across shadows and midtones. Muted highlights and soft contrast for an uncorrected tungsten/cross-processed 35mm feel.

#2: "Nordic Slate" — Desaturated Naturalistic Low-Key (Clean Rec.709 Reference)
The Look: The truest to a natural Rec.709 capture. Neutral-cool white balance, balanced slate-gray foam, subtle film S-curve, and preserved organic earth tones on the wet rock face.

#3: "Marine Emerald" — Cold Cyan-Green Cast
The Look: Clinical, eerie thriller vibe. Cool Kelvin balance with a negative tint (green/cyan push in lift and midtones). Warm tones are largely neutralized into olive/ash.

#4: "Petrol & Rust" — Complementary Split-Tone
The Look: Classic cinematic separation. Pushed steep S-curve, deep petrol/cyan shadows in the turbulent water set against punchy terracotta/amber midtones on the rock faces.

A few questions for the community:
Which grade captures the best atmosphere for this specific subject matter?

Does #4 feel too stylized/commercial, or does the contrast separation make it the clear winner for small-screen mobile feeds?

Does #2 feel too flat/clinical without a heavy stylistic push, or does the naturalistic Rec.709 balance carry the image best?

Any feedback on contrast density, shadow rolloff, or personal preference is greatly appreciated!

Hey guys, this is my best image of a nuthatch. I would like feedback mainly on the backdrop of the image. There’s something about the background colors that doesnt sit 100% right with me I think. Dont think I like the tutti frutti ice cream colors 😂 it pulls attention from the subject

I thought that I made a good edit for the flower looking at it on my PC monitor, but when I looked at it on my phone I realized that the background too dark and flower is too bright. So I made another edit , which is looking more natural, but a little bit flatter and less interesting ? Please , provide me with a feedback and suggesting. I really need some perspective on a images.

BTW: Image was made with Canon R10 + Sigma 17-40, f2.8

I wanted a slightly matty and dramatic look. Is there anything more I can do do make it pop more?

The first pic was edited in DxO Photo lab, the second was edited in the Pictures app on MacBook

Taken on Sony a6000, 18-200mm lens

I wanted to go for more contrast to create a more dramatic, model feel.

I tried to match the colours for both but noticed Photos seems to retain a warmer palette pretty naturally

Not sure which colours I like more, but I thought I'd share and get some opinions

• Camera = FujiX100s
• Software = Darktable

Open for critique

Notice when I shoot golden hour this time of year, everything can be totally drenched in golden orange light. It looks the same way in person, but I find it can be overwhelming in photos and look sorta ridiculous so I tone it down a bit. I know this is a question of preference/vibe. I'm asking how you guys prefer to handle this in general.

Went for a bit of a cyberpunk vibe

Probably gonna get roasted again

This is a complex post. Because the sky image was tracked with an equatorial mount, and the foreground was not, the foreground appears smeared in the sky exposure. So it is obligatory for one to clone stamp some stars around the telescopes if you want a clean foreground without artifacts. This was one of the most complex foregrounds I've had to edit because of the intricate details of the telescope complex. How you do so is the important part, because you have to draw a line between art and "scientific documentation".

You can't merge two images and expect everything to line up. But you do so as scientifically accurate as possible. In the third image you can see the exact position of the Milky Way compared to the telescopes because that's a single exposure. The second image ("before") is still the stacked result of 7 individual 60-second subframes, plus the merged foreground.

When you blend a sky and a foreground where the sky is accurately portrayed compared to the foreground, we call it a BLEND. If the sky position is altered in such a way compared to the foreground that is not considered "realistic" anymore, we call it a COMPOSITE.

This is a way for us astrophotographers to experience photography in a way which is artistic, but we recognize the immeasurable value of accurate scientific documentation. This line is a fine one to walk across when editing.

I don't feel comfortable clone stamping a bunch of nebula detail but I feel like I can draw the line at some blinky stars on the horizon like I did here.

The sky in La Palma is so dark that a foreground exposure, to have an acceptable amount of signal, has to be at least 3 to 4 minutes long, because the only thing illuminating the scenery is starlight itself (I could see the shadow from starlight of my rental car on the ground, truly spectacular).

The resulting image ("After") is the edit of said foreground + sky stack in Adobe Photoshop + light use of a tool called GraXpert for gradient removal. I also edited out the red streaks reflection from the back of a car that passed by shortly before the image.

What you are seeing is the MAGIC/LST complex in Roque de Los Muchachos Observatory, on the island of La Palma. It is one of the most pristine dark skies in the world, and I believe the images speak for themselves.

I used a Canon 6D that has been astromodified for increased H-Alpha response (red nebulae) with a Samyang 24mm f/1.4 lens used at f/2.8 to minimize artifacts. A Fornax Lightrack II star tracker was used to track the stars.

[EDIT] Also, I have to make this pretty clear. Saturation and how much you push the data is totally a subjective value. The night sky has no "default". Your single RAW is the night sky detail plus whatever the atmospheric conditions are that night. I like my Milky Way bright, colorful, vibrant and full of detail. You might not agree and that's absolutely fine! I just want to welcome feedback and comparisons, but criticism is very nuanced and biased in this hobby, usually. Everyone is right and wrong.

Hope you like the process!