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.
It is a little dark overall - could be the gamma difference between
mac and pc - maybe. The sky is rather nice, but the big issue for me
is a lack of subject just some water and sky. There is nothing there
to really grab me. Hope this helps.
--
Bruce
Sunday, April 1, 2007, 3:51:32 PM, you wr
Looks dull and lifeless.
Russell Kerstetter 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 'tou
Very dark on my Mac. (Which runs on gamma 2.2.)
Paul
On Apr 1, 2007, at 7:13 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
> It is a little dark overall - could be the gamma difference between
> mac and pc - maybe. The sky is rather nice, but the big issue for me
> is a lack of subject just some water and sky. There
nt: Monday, April 02, 2007 12:52 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: PESO - Harriman Reservoir
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 irritat
Ditto on all counts
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Bruce Dayton
> It is a little dark overall - could be the gamma difference between
> mac and pc - maybe. The sky is rather nice, but the big issue for me
> is a lack of subject just some water and sky. There is nothing there
> to re
Hi Russell
As others have commented, it seems dark but, in any case, there doesn't seem to
be any strong feature in the image that grabs attention.
Cheers
Brian
++
Brian Walters
Western Sydney Australia
Quoting Russell Kerstetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This
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
Hi,
I like nice blue skies with clouds too. However, you needn't underexpose
to get them. Adjustments can be made when processing the pics that will
give you what you want. I don't know how Lightroom or iPhoto work,
although I imagen that they probably provide some of the same or similar
featur
Hi - I forgot to send this along.
http://home.earthlink.net/~pdml-pics/IMGP2882a.jpg
How does that look to you?
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Russell Kerstetter
> Thanks Bruce, PJ, Paul, Markus Shel and Brian for being honest. When
> I look at it objectively, I agree that it is mostl
The image is much brighter, but the image still looks a bit flat, with
artifacts in the water that I associate with over much exposure
compensation in Photoshop.
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> Hi - I forgot to send this along.
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~pdml-pics/IMGP2882a.jpg
>
> How does that l
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
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 res
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-
>
> Th
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 Kers
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 l
Yes. You need better tools. Adjustment layers and masking is the way
to go on this sort of image processing problem.
G
On Apr 4, 2007, at 4:54 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> The land is still muddy. You need to treat the midtones independently
> of the highlights. You can do that with the shadow/
Thanks.
Russ
On 4/4/07, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.htm
yeah, I am working in iPhoto. I have only been using it since my
Lightroom beta expired, and really, this is the first image that I
have processed with it. (And with only one image done, I can already
see the huge limitations.)
Russ
On 4/4/07, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The lan
I have definately been convinced of the need for a better tool. I was
trying to save for a second body (it is very inconvinient when Pentax
keeps your only body for three weeks), but I might have to buy
lightroom instead. We will see.
Russ
On 4/4/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Apr 4, 2007, at 1:08 PM, Russell Kerstetter wrote:
> I have definately been convinced of the need for a better tool. I was
> trying to save for a second body (it is very inconvinient when Pentax
> keeps your only body for three weeks), but I might have to buy
> lightroom instead. We will see
Russ,
I'm no expert, but
Photoshop Elements 4.0 will get you what you need for under $100.
Regards, Bob S.
On 4/4/07, Russell Kerstetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> yeah, I am working in iPhoto. I have only been using it since my
> Lightroom beta expired, and really, this is the first image tha
Yeah, I am looking into that as well as Lightroom, I have until the
end of April to get Lr for the reduced cost. Thanks.
Russ
On 4/8/07, Bob Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Russ,
> I'm no expert, but
> Photoshop Elements 4.0 will get you what you need for under $100.
> Regards, Bob S.
>
>
Neither am I, but Gimp (for Windows) will do a fine job for $0
http://gimp-win.sourceforge.net/
Drew.
Bob Sullivan wrote:
> Russ,
> I'm no expert, but
> Photoshop Elements 4.0 will get you what you need for under $100.
> Regards, Bob S.
>
> On 4/4/07, Russell Kerstetter <[EMAIL PROTEC
On 4/8/07, drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Neither am I, but Gimp (for Windows) will do a fine job for $0
>
> http://gimp-win.sourceforge.net/
>
> Drew.
>
I did try The Gimp before I bought my MacBook, however, to me it was
fairly cumbersome. I don't actually know what I am doing, so add t
Russell Kerstetter wrote:
> On 4/8/07, drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Neither am I, but Gimp (for Windows) will do a fine job for $0
>>
>> http://gimp-win.sourceforge.net/
>>
>> Drew.
>>
>
> I did try The Gimp before I bought my MacBook, however, to me it was
> fairly cumbersome. I don't
I did used Picasa for the most part on my PC (remember the part about
being frustrated with the GIMP :), and it did a pretty good job. I
actually liked it better than iPhoto. I cannot speak to the technical
aspects of conversion and adjustments, etc, but as far as the
useablitly, I think that it
27 matches
Mail list logo
