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/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 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. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
