On 19/07/2011 7:52 AM, Darren Addy wrote:
William's shot is a nice image, but it appears to me that it was taken in a museum, under fluorescent lights with a wallpaper background. It that IS where it is taken (or something similar), then this is understandable and a nice representation of what was there. If it wasn't taken there and was an outdoors illuminated shot in nature, then I think the tone/color balance/tone mapping probably misrepresents the original scene in a rather unsatisfying way.
That was shot beside a fairly large creek in my favourite part of BC (Rosebery) right at dusk. The "wallpaper background" is the stream itself with the rocks just below the surface of the water. The combination of the extended exposure and that they are somewhat out of focus is what is fooling you into thinking it is something that it isn't. That is a combination of two exposures, one to get the bulk of the image, and one to get the mushroom, which was really dark. All I did was stack the main exposure over the brighter one and erase the layer to show the mushroom below it. There was no tone mapping, and it is an accurate representation of what was there, with the exception of using the double exposure to secure what the camera couldn't do in one. I should probably boost the gamma in the mushroom layer a bit, but it made a very nice print on my wall, and I'm pretty much done with the file so I probably won't.
-- William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
