On 22/09/2011 1:05 PM, Christine Nielsen wrote:
So... what to do? Anything? Maybe it's me... Or is this just the way
it goes??? Any thoughts are appreciated...
I didn't read this thread, so I don't know if this has been mentioned,
but get some translucent fabric and cover that window.
One could try reducing the overall exposure to kill the hot spots a
little, then add some fill to bring back some of the detail in the
shadows...much the same as doing it in camera. Might work if the hot
spots aren't too hot.
For minor hot spots and reflections, this technique often works
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 11:51 AM, William Robb
anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't read this thread, so I don't know if this has been mentioned, but
get some translucent fabric and cover that window.
Get enough fabric and make yourself some big, stand up reflectors as well.
I made a
On 24/09/2011 1:57 PM, Christine Nielsen wrote:
You have a beautiful, natural light source there, take advantage of it.
Oh, I plan to! I think there's a bit of a learning curve, though
the light in there changes throughout the day, and, I suspect, with
the seasons...
Covering the
From: Christine Nielsen
For me the jury's out on the various Google properties. I've distrusted
Picasa in the past as the images looked suspiciously munched to me. I know
that Google+ is just reusing the Picasa facilities and photogs seem happy
with that, so maybe Picasa is ok now. ?I'm not sure
Our old barn got a renovation, and lucky me (!), I got a studio space
out of the deal. It's only very recently been finished, and I'm just
starting to get a little time to play out there. The other day, i
asked my daughter to sit for some portraits -- I had to capture that
summer tan before it
On 9/22/2011 12:05 PM, Christine Nielsen wrote:
Our old barn got a renovation, and lucky me (!), I got a studio space
out of the deal. It's only very recently been finished, and I'm just
starting to get a little time to play out there. The other day, i
asked my daughter to sit for some
Christine,
Nice photos and a charming daughter.
I use Picassa and Photo.net
Picassa for more casual stuff as colors will wander.
I take my best stuff to Photo.net as a more reliable display.
Regards, Bob S.
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Christine Nielsen ch...@inielsen.net wrote:
Our old
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote:
On 9/22/2011 12:05 PM, Christine Nielsen wrote:
Our old barn got a renovation, and lucky me (!), I got a studio space
out of the deal. It's only very recently been finished, and I'm just
starting to get a little time to
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote:
Christine,
Nice photos and a charming daughter.
I use Picassa and Photo.net
Picassa for more casual stuff as colors will wander.
I take my best stuff to Photo.net as a more reliable display.
Regards, Bob S.
Thanks,
That last shot is amazing, wonderful.
As for online presentation, yeah, there are a lot of processes that
are going to abuse your precious bits. This is one reason I self-host
everything I care about at tbray.org; the large versions of my pix
are what comes out of Lightroom.
Having said that,
on 2011-09-22 13:05 Christine Nielsen wrote
I know
that different monitors might render images differently, but even on
the same, calibrated monitor that i use for editing, it seems that
different browsers (I have firefox, safari chrome, chrome being the
worst offender) different websites
Christine Nielsen wrote:
I'm often frustrated when I see how my
photos are rendered online. My monitor is calibrated, and in the
editing process, everything seems to go just fine. I make sure I
export in srgb. Once my photos are loaded onto different websites
(blogger, picasa, flickr,
On 11-09-22 4:02 PM, Christine Nielsen wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Larry Colenl...@red4est.com wrote:
One thing about them that I see on a lot of portraits is that the highlights
on the skin seem a bit overexposed to me, so that detail is lost. I don't
know whether this is a
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Christine Nielsen ch...@inielsen.net wrote:
Our old barn got a renovation, and lucky me (!), I got a studio space
out of the deal. It's only very recently been finished, and I'm just
starting to get a little time to play out there. The other day, i
asked my
On 11-09-22 3:05 PM, Christine Nielsen wrote:
Our old barn got a renovation, and lucky me (!), I got a studio space
out of the deal. It's only very recently been finished, and I'm just
starting to get a little time to play out there. The other day, i
asked my daughter to sit for some portraits
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Mark Roberts m...@robertstech.com wrote:
There's a big can of worms you're opening here,
That's what I was afraid of... oy.
So, before anything else... Can you point me at an example of one of
your images (the same file) looking different on several
What Frank Said. Love the jumping shot. The others could benefit from a little
less exposure and a reflector at camera right to provide some fill. The ratio
between the window lit portion of the face and the shade portion is a bit
extreme. That being said, they're all very nice.
Paul
On Sep
For me the jury's out on the various Google properties. I've distrusted
Picasa in the past as the images looked suspiciously munched to me. I know
that Google+ is just reusing the Picasa facilities and photogs seem happy
with that, so maybe Picasa is ok now. I'm not sure what Blogger does
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 4:20 PM, steve harley p...@paper-ape.com wrote:
you can do controlled tests of your browsers against several online images
to isolate whether it is the browser or Flickr, etc. — search for something
like browser color management test for many examples; i don't claim to
If you convert the shots to SRGB color space before web posting they should
look about the same on every site. If you're using PhotoShop, just do a save
for web.
Paul
On Sep 22, 2011, at 8:23 PM, Christine Nielsen wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Mark Roberts m...@robertstech.com wrote:
My quick very non-judgmental reactions (i.e., based on feel, not on analysis
using my own or others' criteria for what makes a good portrait):
a. Good model. You are lucky to have her as your model, she is lucky to have
you as her photographer.
b. The left side of the three portraits all seem
Thanks Paul, Frank, Tim everyone else who had a look. The jump
shot is her favorite, too. :)
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 8:37 PM, Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote:
What Frank Said. Love the jumping shot. The others could benefit from a
little less exposure and a reflector at camera
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Stan Halpin
s...@stans-photography.info wrote:
My quick very non-judgmental reactions (i.e., based on feel, not on analysis
using my own or others' criteria for what makes a good portrait):
a. Good model. You are lucky to have her as your model, she is lucky
On 11-09-22 8:46 PM, Stan Halpin wrote:
My quick very non-judgmental reactions (i.e., based on feel, not on analysis
using my own or others' criteria for what makes a good portrait):
a. Good model. You are lucky to have her as your model, she is lucky to have
you as her photographer.
b. The
I'll concede the point to someone who knows far more than I do about the topic.
As you and others have pointed out, the overall range of EVs is too great
across the scene. Best to fix that upfront with different lighting balance. My
point was that, for these photos already shot, a rescue might
26 matches
Mail list logo
