The land is still muddy. You need to treat the midtones independently of the highlights. You can do that with the shadow/highlight tool or with curves if you're working in PhotoShop. Paul On Apr 4, 2007, at 12:51 AM, 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 >> > > > -- > 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
