Nice clouds now. Russell Kerstetter wrote: > Here is a new, brighter version. It is still a little dark, but much > more than this and the clouds are just a white mess. > > http://www.avocadohead.com/piclinks/spare.html > > Thanks again to those who commented. > > Russ > > On 4/2/07, Russell Kerstetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Shel and Godders- >> >> Thanks for taking the time to show me some alternative solutions. I >> like both of your different takes, I also like that you were able to >> brighten the whole thing up without losing the cloud detail. I >> fiddled around for a while this evening, but was not able to duplicate >> our results. I can brighten it up some, but by the time I start to >> lose cloud detail the water in the lake is still too dark. But that >> may be the price I have to pay for using free software :) So I will >> have to mess around with this some more again tomorrow evening and see >> what I can come up with. Thanks again. >> >> Russ >> >> On 4/2/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Your original was rendered extremely dark, Russell. It's a simple >>> landscape scene ... rendered up with a bit bit of balancing between >>> water and sky, you get this rather nice, rather serene feel out of >>> it. I took the liberty of doing a couple of edits to give you an idea >>> where I'd go with it... It includes your original so you can see the >>> differences easily. >>> >>> http://homepage.mac.com/godders/rk2882/ >>> >>> This is a case where if I was using Lightroom I could likely do most >>> of what I did with its tools, and presuming I had the RAW file to >>> work with, but with just an 8bit image file to work with Photoshop >>> allows the kind of gentle, selective editing required to bring this up. >>> >>> 1- Don't underexpose. Determine where the brightest elements are that >>> you want to retain detail in and expose correctly for that ... >>> Placing exposure properly like that takes a little time to figure out >>> and if you're not sure you should bracket exposure around it. The >>> histogram shows you an approximation based on values in the JPEG >>> preview that is rendered for every file, but if you're capturing in >>> RAW you can work with what looks like a little bit of highlight >>> overexposures on the histogram. It's not rigorously calibrated, you >>> have to work with it to understand what you're seeing. >>> >>> 2- Yes, this is a problem. Your screen looks overly bright compared >>> to the ambient light and that's tricking your eye. Better to >>> calibrate and profile the screen in modest, normal room light and >>> work that way so that your eyes and the screen are at proper >>> luminance values. I calibrate my screen for 140 lumens, gamma 1.8 and >>> 5500K white point in normal, indirect room illumination. Move any >>> light that glares on the screen to a different position so that's not >>> a problem. This will make a huge difference in how your photos come out. >>> >>> Godfrey >>> >>> >>> On Apr 2, 2007, at 12:04 PM, Russell Kerstetter wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Thanks Bruce, PJ, Paul, Markus Shel and Brian for being honest. When >>>> I look at it objectively, I agree that it is mostly an uninteresting >>>> picture. Maybe next time I will try the 'Auto Compose' function on my >>>> DL. >>>> >>>> I have been told several times, that my pictures are too dark. To be >>>> clear, we are talking a few stops dark, but not black or anything like >>>> that, right? >>>> >>>> I think there are two issues here (if anyone cares to comment >>>> further): >>>> >>>> 1) Foremost, I think I have a tendency to underexpose, specifically >>>> on shots like this. I really like detail in the clouds and am afraid >>>> of losing it even when the clouds are not the most important aspect of >>>> the picture. IIRC the histogram for this shot had the highlights >>>> touching the first bar from the right (which is a half-stop right?) >>>> but I think that what you are seeing on your screen is probably darker >>>> than just a half-stop. >>>> >>>> 2) I usually work in a dark room because I hate glare off the screen. >>>> I have been running my mac on gamma 1.8 instead of 2.2, but from what >>>> I am hearing I think that is a negligible part of my problem. >>>> >>>> Russ >>>> (here to learn) >>>> >>>> On 4/1/07, Russell Kerstetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> This is a reservoir/lake near my mother-in-law's house. Also this is >>>>> the first photo I have processed with iPhoto. I was using Lightroom >>>>> beta, iPhoto definately has less features and some irritating >>>>> limitations, but it does have the 'touch-up' tool, which is pretty >>>>> handy. >>>>> >>>>> http://www.avocadohead.com/piclinks/IMGP2882.html >>>>> >>>>> Honest comments please, thanks for looking. >>>>> >>>>> Russ >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Legacy Air, Inc. >>>>> 11900 Airport Way >>>>> Broomfield Colorado 80021 >>>>> (303) 404-0277 >>>>> fax (303) 404-0280 >>>>> www.legacy-air.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Legacy Air, Inc. >>>> 11900 Airport Way >>>> Broomfield Colorado 80021 >>>> (303) 404-0277 >>>> fax (303) 404-0280 >>>> www.legacy-air.com >>>> >>>> -- >>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> PDML@pdml.net >>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> PDML@pdml.net >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> >>> >> -- >> Legacy Air, Inc. >> 11900 Airport Way >> Broomfield Colorado 80021 >> (303) 404-0277 >> fax (303) 404-0280 >> www.legacy-air.com >> >> > > >
-- Entropy Seminar: The results of a five yeer studee ntu the sekend lw uf thurmodynamiks aand itz inevibl fxt hon shewb rt nslpn raq liot. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
