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 > > > [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 > > > > > -- > 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 [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
