On 2017-05-26 15:18, Piotr Ryszkiewicz wrote: > Hi all, > > I am trying to learn postprocessing photographs, still at the > beginning of learning curve. I'd like to ask more experienced users > what can I do with underexposed image as this one: > > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3cSQCYRbO3RZWZIZURKUEF6Rms > > I tried my best and was able to get output better than jpg out of > camera, but still I am not satisfied, as the result looks somehow > unnatural. Here is it: > > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3cSQCYRbO3RSkVtaXJPLURUUjQ > And here is xmp file: > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3cSQCYRbO3RSGpiM3YxV3pZV3c > > Would you be so kind and give me some suggestions how can I improve it > ? Or even better - could you process it yourself and post your xmp > file ?
Here is my take: https://math.dartmouth.edu/owncloud/s/dt6IpL3RIHrYmSs The scene is back-lit, so most attempts to fill-in the shadows are likely to result in somewhat “unnatural” lighting. In such a situation the best probably would have been to use a fill-in flash, which might have also allowed to preserve details in the sky (reflection in the puddle reveals that there might have been some interesting sky). In my opinion, image is not underexposed — the sky part is overexposed. darktable 2.2.4; default base curve for the camera (no fusion). I assume we use calibrated and profiled displays, not only for darktable, but also whatever program is used for viewing the processed images is “color managed”. -- Šarūnas Burdulis math.dartmouth.edu/~sarunas
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
