That's what got me into trouble first time around:-). Seriously, I did use a bit of dodge and burn. But my first attempt, which included quite a bit of burn on the highlights, looked unnatural. "Subtle" is the key with digital dodge and burn. Paul On Mar 11, 2007, at 11:23 AM, P. J. Alling wrote:
> Try using the Photoshop dodge and burn tools. I'm rediscovering > "traditional" B&W methods. > > Paul Stenquist wrote: >> Thanks Cotty. Yes, I agree. However, I think your rendering deepens >> the >> shadows excessively. David sent me a rendering as well. His pulls down >> the highlights without deepening the shadows. I'm going to rework the >> original file. Thanks for the feedback and the PhotoShop work. >> Paul >> On Mar 11, 2007, at 6:10 AM, Cotty wrote: >> >> >>> On 10/3/07, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed: >>> >>> >>>> Compare these if you will. One pic lets the highlights live in their >>>> near blown-out natural rendering. The other pulls them down. Version >>>> one or version two? >>>> >>>> Version One: >>>> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5704742 >>>> >>> Sorry, earlier I said version one - but needs pulling down even more >>> - >>> ignore that. >>> >>> What I meant to say is - version one, but still a bit bright. May I >>> take >>> a liberty? Try this: >>> >>> <http://www.cottysnaps.com/snaps/spare2.html> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Cotty >>> >>> >>> ___/\__ >>> || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche >>> ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com >>> _____________________________ >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> [email protected] >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > -- > 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 > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
